Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 12th June 1979 relating to the nomination of members of the Committee of Selection be further amended, by inserting Mr. Ken Eastham.— [Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WOOLWORTH (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mr. Speaker: Questions and answers have been getting longer recently. It will enable more questions to be called and answered if brevity is the order of the day.

Scotmap

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the local authorities and the independent bus operators on the Scotmap proposals; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I welcome the Scotmap objectives of providing more cost-efficient bus services, better tailored to local needs. Detailed proposals arising from Scotmap studies are, however, for discussion between the bus company and the local authority concerned.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my hon. Friend aware that if these rationalisation proposals go through they will have a serious impact on the local independent bus companies, on which the rural communities rely? Is he further aware that there will be serious inconvenience to the travelling public?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the independent operators, especially in rural communities. Detailed decisions affecting his constituency are, of course, for the Western SMT and the regional council, and I have no doubt that they will take full note of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Corrie: What effect is the phasing out of the new bus grant having on bus services? Is my hon. Friend not worried that, with a lot of older buses on the roads, there will be a lack of safety standards among those buses?

Mr. Stewart: I am happy completely to reassure my hon. Friend about safety. On the SBG's finances, we believe that the existing target of 4½ per cent. per annum on net fixed assets is moderate and reasonable.

Select Committee on Scottish Affairs

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes on the latest report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I am considering the report. I shall respond to the Select Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that that excellent man the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—deserves the congratulations of the whole House on the report, which has been even better received in my constituency than the determination to extend development area status to Orkney and Shetland? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that it will not be allowed to moulder in that revolting building, New St. Andrew's House, and in particular that he will pay attention to the proposals on road equivalent tariff and on reducing the price of petrol? What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have on those two matters?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his warm compliment to the work of my neighbour in Ayrshire, which I, too, greatly appreciate. I am also grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the assisted area status in Shetland. I join him in welcoming the Select Committee's excellent report. I shall study all of its recommendations with great care and respond as soon as possible.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that I join in the congratulations on this very useful and helpful report? However, as he has gone some way towards assisting shipping services on the West Coast, will he now set a deadline for the introduction of the road equivalent tariff?

Mr. Younger: I am not very keen on setting a deadline. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we have moved a long way towards the road equivalent tariff, as we undertook to do. The grant has been more than doubled in cash terms and stands at £10·6 million, which is a great advance.
There are many different views about what would be the best form of road equivalent tariff. Some areas think that they might gain while others think that they might not gain so much. We must get the answers right before we finalise the matter.

Mr. Myles: Despite the praise that he gives the report, does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion to zero rate petrol and transfer the cost to petrol duty would be a retrograde step in country areas?

Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend said. I would prefer not to make a detailed comment about that until I have had the opportunity to study it. I greatly welcome the fact that the Select Committee has gone into the problem of the price of petrol in rural areas.

Mr. Lambie: I accept the congratulations of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Select Committee's report. I do not know whether the Secretary


of State is congratulating me on the good report or on the fact that I am giving him 7,000 Tory voters from Troon following redistribution of the boundaries. May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that this was the unanimous report of a Select Committee with a Conservative majority? I hope that he will implement its findings as quickly as possible. As a means of making progress towards that aim, will he provide an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the report?

Mr. Younger: The latter point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wants a debate, he can make a request. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is best that such an important document should be carefully considered. I shall do that as quickly as I can.

National Health Service (Dispute)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the Health Service workers dispute.

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement regarding the dispute in the National Health Service in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The effects of the dispute have been damaging to the care of patients in Scotland, with some areas and services being more seriously affected than others. In some cases the trade unions have failed to provide even the basic levels of service required by their code of practice. Whatever the feelings on their pay claim, there can be no justification for the trade unions' action in withdrawing essential services from those least able to look after themselves.
The Government last week authorised an improved offer to nurses and professions supplementary to medicine of 7·5 per cent., to ambulancemen and pharmacists of 6·5 per cent., and to other staff of 6 per cent. I hope that all staff concerned will accept that these increases are reasonable and realistic in present circumstances and will now return to normal working.

Mr. Canavan: Now that a conciliatory meeting has been arranged between the trade unions and ACAS, will the Government depart from their inflexible attitude and agree to meet the ACAS chairman in order to give further consideration to the justifiable 12 per cent. wage claim? What the Government have offered so far is an insult and amounts to a wage decrease in real terms to nurses and other ancillary workers who are essential to the survival of the National Health Service, founded by a previous Labour Government but threatened with destruction by the present Tory Government?

Mr. MacKay: There has been real growth in the Health Service since this Government took over from the Labour Government. As for inflexibility, we showed in our offer last week of 6 per cent., 6·5 per cent., and 7·5 per cent. a degree of flexibility. The inflexibility has come from the trade union side, which has stuck rigidly to a demand of 12 per cent. and above.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister accept that the trade unions, far from being inflexible, are very flexible? It is the trade unions that have asked to see ACAS next Tuesday. The Government have so far made no

conciliatory moves in the dispute. Will the Minister accept that, even under the Government's improved offer, according to official figures published in The Guardian today student nurses will actually be worse off financially? When will the Government see sense in this dispute? They are just as responsible as anyone else for damaging patient care.

Mr. MacKay: The Government have said all along that they are not prepared to sanction a recourse to arbitration. It would be wrong to subcontract to some independent body the decision about how much the Government and the taxpayer can afford. The increases that we announced last week, which show flexibility on our side not matched on the other side, are believed by the Government to be fair and in line with settlements of about 6 per cent. in comparable parts of the public sector.

Mr. Ancram: In the light of my hon. Friend's reply that the trade unions in certain areas were not acting in accordance with the trade union code of practice, will he identify the hospitals where the code has not been adhered to?

Mr. MacKay: There are a number of hospitals in Scotland, including, I think, some in my hon. Friend's constituency, where, during some of the time in the last five weeks, the code of practice was not adhered to—

Mr. Canavan: Which ones?

Mr. MacKay: There were two hospitals affected in Edinburgh during the laundry dispute, which, fortunately, has been partially resolved.

Mr. Canavan: There are more than two hospitals in Edinburgh. Name them.

Mr. MacKay: They were the Edinburgh Royal infirmary and the Royal Edinburgh mental hospital.
No reduction in the level of care for seriously ill and highly dependent patients is regarded as acceptable by the Government. When large hospitals like the two that I have mentioned and others are left without catering staff, porters and cleaners, and when soiled linen is allowed to pile up for days on end and there are insufficient quantities of clean bedding or clothes for elderly and mentally ill patients, it is clear that the standards of care have fallen below a tolerable level and that the code of practice is not being obeyed.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Minister accept that if there is any inconvenience to patients, the responsibility lies squarely on the Government? Will he accept from me that the final word has not been said on this matter by a long way? How can the hon. Gentleman and the Government say in the same breath that there is no extra money for National Health Service employees but that there will be at least £1,000 million available for financing the Falkland Islands fiasco?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The figure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned yesterday was £500 million for this financial year out of the Contingency Fund. That comes out of the Contingency Fund.

Mr. Willian Hamilton: Then pay the nurses out of it.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand what the Contingency Fund means. Let me reiterate. Last week we offered a reasonable increase


consistent with increases to teachers, to civil servants and, indeed, to the Armed Forces. I hope that workers in the National Health Service will at least take away our offer and consider it, as the nurses are prepared to do.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nurses are a special case and that this has already been recognised by the Government? Does he further agree that during the winter of discontent the National Health Service unions, along with other unions, brought about the demise of the Labour Government so that they could return to free collective bargaining.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Is that what they have?

Mr. Walker: Part of free collective bargaining is job security, holidays and pensions. All of this has to be computed when one is working out wages, particularly at a time—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacKay: Our record of expenditure on the National Health Service and increases that we have given to the nurses, in particular, since the last election, are matters of which we can be proud. They contrast with the increases given by the Labour Government which ended up in all the trouble of the winter of 1978–79, which Opposition Members seem to have suddenly and completely forgotten.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the Under-Secretary justify giving different levels of pay increases to different people working in the National Health Service, especially as he has recognised the importance of porters and laundry workers in keeping the service going? What justification exists for widening differentials when people are already taking a very real cut in their standard of living.?

Mr. Mackay: In making an offer of 7·5 per cent. to the nurses and professions supplementary to medicine we are recognising their special position within the National Health Service as the people who give direct patient care. We are also recognising the expensive training that equips them for their position in the Health Service. I am certain, whatever the Opposition may say, that the people of this country recognise that it is right to pay special attention in wage negotiations to the particular case of nurses and professions supplementary to medicine.

Mr. Canavan: Give them the 12 per cent. then.

Rating Reform

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce the proposed content and timing of legislation to reform the rating system in Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Not yet. The diverse public responses to the options set out in the Green Paper merit careful consideration.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend accept that progress should be made towards achieving a much fairer and more equitable form of taxation system in this respect, however much the ratepayers of Lothian region may be delighted with the reduction in rates following the local elections?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reactions to the Green Paper have reinforced our

impression that ratepayers of all classes are anxious for early relief from the rates burden. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the new Lothian administration's early decision that its ratepayers should benefit from a reduction in expenditure that will lead to an average saving of £43 for every domestic ratepayer.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister remember that we were derided when we opposed the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Order 1982 and suggested that partial revaluation had handicaps? Does he also remember that only on 17 May he was pouring cold water on our doubts? Is he aware that we welcome his repeal of the order and the postponement of partial revaluation? Does he agree that the clear implication of that retreat is that something has gone seriously wrong with the implementation of plans for electoral reform that were easily given in an electoral promise?

Mr. Stewart: Certainly not. My right hon. Friend responded positively to CoSLA's representations and decided not to go ahead with partial revaluation in 1982–83. We shall go ahead instead with full revaluation in 1985–86. That decision demonstrates the seriousness with which my right hon. Friend and I take representations from CoSLA.

Mr. Maclennan: What steps will the Government take to relieve commercial premises of the rate burden?

Mr. Stewart: We have consistently made it clear that proposals for the reform of the rating system will take fully into account the interests of industrial and commercial ratepayers.

Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the devastating effect that high rates are having on the hotel industry and, therefore, on the tourist industry in Scotland? Does he envisage any relief for that sector of the economy?

Mr. Stewart: I have received representations on that point. We are studying several detailed aspects of the problem.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: For the benefit of hon. Members with short memories, will the Minister repeat his party's pledge about rate reform? Does he agree that the increased unpopularity of rates has been due largely to the inflationary policies of the Government and the reduction of rate support grant?

Mr. Stewart: I reiterate that the specific pledge to abolish domestic rates in one Parliament was given in the Conservative manifesto of 1974—not 1979, which was the election that the Conservatives won. We have made clear our commitment to reforming the rating system in the long term.

Hamilton College of Education

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement about the sale of the former Hamilton college of education buildings.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Prospective purchasers have been informed that the property is available for disposal either as a whole or in lots and have been invited to submit firm offers by 23 July.

Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that today the doors closed on Lanarkshire's fine college of education at Hamilton, and that responsibility for that contemptible act of educational damage lies fairly and squarely at his door? Will he assure the House that there is no possibility of his agreeing to an elitist private school taking over these buildings? Will he also assure the House that the acute shortage of student accommodation, which has been occasioned by the residences closing, will be greeted with help from the Scottish Education Department?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the college closed because it virtually ran out of students as a result of the diminishing demand for teachers and the falling school population in Scotland. The Government have always made it clear that we should like the buildings to continue in educational use. So far, no offer has been submitted by any education authority in the West of Scotland.

Ayr (Redundancies)

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many redundancies have been notified to his Department in Ayr during the past three months.

Mr. Younger: Since 1 April 1982 two instances of redundancy involving 10 or more people have been notified to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur in the Ayr employment office area with the loss of 109 jobs.

Mr. McKelvey: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of those enforced redundancies was to be at Wallacetown Engineering? Will he, like my colleagues from Ayrshire, welcome the fact that the management has acceded to the trade unions' legitimate claims and that normal work will resume tonight or tomorrow, thus ending an 11-week occupation of the factory, which was justified as it was in pursuit of legitimate aims?
Is he not ashamed that he did not join Labour Members from Ayrshire in applying pressure to the management to bring about an early and successful conclusion to the dispute, thus alleviating some of the misery and hardship that was suffered by the families of those who were forced to fight to justify their trade union rights?

Mr. Younger: I, too, am relieved that the protracted dispute ended yesterday as a result of an agreement between the management and the trade unions concerned. I deplore the actions of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. They encouraged a dispute that has done grave damage to the future of many people's jobs in my constituency. I should have much preferred it if they had not done so.

Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's modesty. Will he tell the House some of the good things that have happened in Ayrshire, especially with regard to Scottish Aviation, for which Government contracts are important in the long-term future?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He may like to know that since May 1979 we have made no fewer than 12 offers of selective financial assistance to firms in the Ayr employment office area. That has involved more than 2,300 jobs and associated investment of about £66 million. My hon. Friend will also know that we have given special assistance to British Aerospace,

Caledonian Airmotive and the Digital Equipment Company, all of which have been expanding their employment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating my three hon. Friends from Ayrshire who joined the trade unions to save jobs? Rather than bleating, would it not be better if he took a leaf out of their book and fought a little harder to save more jobs in the Scottish economy?

Mr. Younger: It would help a great deal if the hon. Gentleman learnt his facts before intervening in these matters. He may not be aware that the company was seriously considering expansion before the strike took place. I am depressed by the fact that the strike cannot have helped that prospect. I hope that the expansion will still take place.

National Health Service (Dispute)

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about industrial action in hospitals in Scotland.

Mr. John MacKay: We have received a range of comments from health boards, outside organisations and members of the public on the continuing difficulties for hospital patients that have been caused by the current dispute.

Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole basis of the Health Service is that patient care comes first? Does he agree that the continuing support and sympathy for workers in the Health Service has been eroded by the callous way in which they have disregarded the interests of patients in Scotland? Are the Government prepared to take every step, even if it includes crossing picket lines, to ensure that patient care comes first?

Mr. MacKay: I agree that the spectacle of patients being put at risk and in great discomfort cannot have done the Health Service unions' case any good. The sooner they think about that, the better. We are fortunate that most nurses and many other staff have continued to work throughout the dispute. Many of them have worked far beyond their normal duties. We should be grateful to them for their efforts to keep up services for the care of patients. I strongly deprecate the efforts of outside bodies to politicise the decision at the expense of patients and their care.

Manpower Services Commission

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to allow the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland greater autonomy in the design and implementation of measures to aid the unemployed.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Manpower Services Commission in Scotland already has considerable autonomy in the implementation of measures to aid the unemployed and Ministers and the Commission consult closely on the design of such measures.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that he received a letter from the Scottish Council for Social Service which said that more than 30 voluntary organisations will not participate in any scheme for phoney


employment for adults? Will he ensure that any such schemes in Scotland satisfy two important criteria: first, that those participating have the full status of employed persons; and, secondly, that they are paid the right wage for the job?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman should know that the schemes put into operation by the MSC in Scotland and elsewhere are agreed by employers, trade union representatives and others on the local committees. The local committees are themselves important and the MSC committee for Scotland makes a great contribution towards ensuring that the schemes are as useful and practical as possible for the unemployed and others who are training.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Why is the Minister allowing the MSC establishment in Scotland to be cut by a far higher percentage than that in England, where unemployment is lower?

Mr. Fletcher: The studies of manpower in the MSC apply on a United Kingdom basis. The MSC in Scotland is performing its functions very satisfactorily. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the MSC is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as well as to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and my right hon. Friend takes a very close interest in these matters.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new training initiative has a much better prospect of being successful in Scotland because we have a Minister with responsibility for education and industry, both of which will be essential elements if the project is to be as successful as we all wish?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, I agree entirely.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Minister look at this again, as in my constituency it is proposed to close down one jobcentre and to reduce the number of staff at the other? In the jobcentre that may be closed as a result of this so-called economy, youth unemployment is remarkable, and 44 per cent. of young people unemployed have been out of work for a year or more.

Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman will know that if it is planned to close a jobcentre in his constituency other jobcentres are being opened elsewhere in the West of Scotland. This is a matter of MSC planning in considering the use and uptake of places at jobcentres, which is low in some parts of the country despite high unemployment.

Mr. Millan: How will opening a jobcentre elsewhere help the people of Greenock?

Mr. Fletcher: It depends on the uptake of places at the jobcentre. These are matters that the MSC or any other organisation must take into account.

Salmon Stocks

Mr. Myles: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an inquiry to investigate the problem of reduced salmon stocks in Scottish rivers.

Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so, but he is watching this situation carefully.

Mr. Myles: I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a keen angler, is aware of the fall in salmon stocks. Is he aware of the serious effects of this on rural economies in areas such as Speyside and Deveronside?

Mr. MacKay: I am well aware of the problem. I am also aware of the reported decline this year, particularly from salmon netting stations. There is, however, no further evidence to show whether this is a temporary decline or a long-term change. A working party is examining matters relevant to the international management of salmon stock and I hope that the creation of the Atlantic salmon convention will be useful in this regard.

Mr. Grimond: As the problem has been going on for some time, presumably the Scottish Office has been examining it for some time. If there is not to be an investigation, what conclusions has the Minister reached about the reasons for the decline in stocks?

Mr. MacKay: At the risk of indulging in a lecture on the cyclical nature of salmon, I should point out that it is early in the year to make a global decision about the decline in stocks. We all realise that stocks are under pressure, but, as has been found in previous years, the grilse run later in the year may be higher than usual. Therefore, we should wait until the end of the year to review the position. Nevertheless, we have been attempting to control and keep down the number of salmon caught off Greenland and the Faroes, both of which areas have increased interception of Atlantic salmon and are undoubtedly causing damage.

Company Liquidations

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies went into liquidation in Scotland during 1979, 1980 and 1981, respectively.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The total number of compulsory and creditors' voluntary liquidations—the two types that involve insolvency—recorded in Scotland in 1979, 1980 and 1981 were 238, 379 and 438, respectively.

Mr. Brown: I am surprised that the question has not been answered, but that is typical of the Government. The record speaks for itself. Instead of the economic miracle—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. He can get that point in if he puts it in the form of a question.

Mr. Brown: The record speaks for itself—[Interruption.] Does it not? Is the Minister aware that an economic miracle has not taken place despite the Government's assurances? Is he also aware that Scotland is suffering as a result of the Government's attitude and is clearly in desperate straits? Does the Minister appreciate that production is lower than it was at the time of the three-day week, which was bad enough? Does he further appreciate that Scotland and its economy has suffered more—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has given the Minister enough to appreciate.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that, whereas the number of liquidations that I mentioned were of the order of 200 or


300, the numbers of new companies registered in Scotland were 3,514, 3,270 and 3,475 last year. He will also wish to know that in his own constituency the Robb Caledon shipyard has recently won three orders—two for Sealink Ferries and one for an oil supply ship for Norway. In my constituency, which borders his, Brown Brothers and Co. (Engineers) has gained a £23 million order to supply steam catapults and stabilisers to the United States Navy.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large number of those smaller companies were established as a result of the Government's efforts to encourage enterprise in Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is encouraging that new businesses are starting up in Scotland at a satisfactory rate.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As the Minister seems to be well briefed with detailed figures, will he tell us how many jobs were lost as a result of the liquidations and how many were created as a result of the new companies starting up?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the unemployment figures in Scotland. He will also be aware that what Scotland needs more than anything else is a growing number of new companies. The figures that I have given reveal that, whereas 200 or 300 companies have been liquidated every year, 2,000 or 3,000 companies have been formed every year, and that is good.

Sheriffs (Appointments)

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that, in the appointment of sheriffs, experience is taken fully into account and that long-serving temporary sheriffs are placed at no disadvantage.

Mr. Allan Stewart: In consultation with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, my right hon. Friend's aim is to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of the best qualified person at any given time. Service as a temporary sheriff is one of a number of factors that are taken into consideration.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that the present system gives absolute power of patronage to the Lord Advocate? Is he aware of concern over recent appointments, and does he agree that a clear-cut set of rules should govern appointments to the Bench in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments. We have not received complaints about the appointments system.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the Minister consult the sheriffs principal on this matter as well as taking all other circumstances into account?

Mr. Stewart: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the views of the sheriffs principal are taken into account by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate before he makes a nomination.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the patronage system of sheriff appointments in Scotland is so corrupt that I am forced to advise my constituents, if they are interested in a fair trial, not to appear before Sheriff Principal Taylor, another failed Tory parliamentary candidate—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Canavan: —because of the way in which—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Canavan: Because of the way in which he tried to gerrymander the parliamentary constituencies in favour of the Tory Party?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very fortunate that I did not order him to leave the Chamber. He knows that he should sit down when I stand up. He also knows that he is not entitled to criticise a judge, as I gather that he was doing, without putting down a motion on the Order Paper.

Coal Output and Electricity Generation

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current relationship between coal output and the generation of electricity by the Scottish boards.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In the year ended 31 March 1982 coal-fired plant produced 59 per cent. of the output of electricity of the Scottish boards. The Scottish electricity boards purchase 71·6 per cent. of the National Coal Board's output in Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that if that ratio continues into the foreseeable future it will be essential that the future of the Invergordon smelter is decided, because of the high proportion of electricity that it uses? When can the Minister make that decision, because it is important to my constituents, who produce coal for power stations and factories?

Mr. Fletcher: We hope to reach a decision on the future of the Invergordon smelter within the next few weeks. We are still conducting negotiations with companies. In the event that efforts to reopen the smelter are successful, it is estimated that the coal burn will be three-quarters of a million tonnes higher annually.

Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend accept that coal remains the most important indigenous source of energy available to this country and that that fact must be reflected in any future energy generating programme? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the political posturings of Mr. Arthur Scargill and Mr. Mick McGahey are endangering what would otherwise be a secure future for the coal miners, because the generating industry requires stability of supply?

Mr. Fletcher: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is worse, Mr. Scargill damages not only the prospects of the coal industry, but those of the Health Service, too.

Mr. Millan: Does the Minister appreciate that the closure of the Invergordon smelter has resulted in a reduction of no less than three-quarters of a million tonnes of coal consumption by the South of Scotland Electricity Board? Is he also aware that the reopening of the smelter is crucial, not only for the area, but for the coal industry and many other industries in Scotland? Is the Minister further aware that there are disturbing press reports to the effect that most of the potential buyers for the Invergordon smelter have now lost interest and that the power contract on offer is either inadequate or not even specific? Can he


say what is happening in the negotiations and give an absolute pledge that the Government will make a full statement on this matter within the next few weeks?

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I are fully aware of the importance of the efforts to reopen the Invergordon smelter. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the biggest single obstacle is the state of the world aluminium market. That is why so many companies have withdrawn from the negotiations. However, there are still two or three companies with which we are in urgent consultation. My right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House as soon as he has full information.

Gourock-Dunoon Ferry

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the arrangements now made for the operation of the Gourock to Dunoon ferry; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Allan Stewart: It is satisfactory that the residents of Cowal continue to have a choice of ferry services, that it has been possible to continue to provide a high standard of service for foot passengers, and that it has been possible to reduce the subsidy being paid to Caledonian MacBrayne in respect of this service in 1982–83 to half the level required in the previous year.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that that choice has largely been preserved because the Conservative Government had to retreat in disorder from their original ludicrous proposals for the ferry service? Is the Minister aware that the firm expected to be the principal beneficiary is now so upset that it is considering going to law? Will the Minister note that when that possibility has been exhausted we shall return to the matter?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Minister assure the House that, to assuage the feelings of uncertainty among my constituents, and others, there will be no proposals from the Government to withdraw or modify services? Will the Minister confirm that preparations are being made to sustain services for the financial year 1983–84?

Mr. Stewart: I can confirm that that is the Government's intention.

Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that competition is a strong lever to bring about cuts in costs and improve efficiency, and that, having saved on the subsidy on those runs, there will be subsidies for other Calmac runs in the West of Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of competition in this area, as in many others.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many long-term unemployed were registered in the Kilbirnie, Saltcoats and Irvine employment exchange areas at the last available date; and how this compares with the same time in 1979, 1980 and 1981.

Mr. Younger: On 15 April 1982, 3,318 people in the Kilbirnie, Saltcoats and Irvine employment office areas had been registered as unemployed for more than one year. The comparable figures for 1979, 1980 and 1981 were 1,324, 1,370 and 1,903, respectively.

Mr. Lambie: Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed to admit that he is the Minister responsible for employment in Scotland? Is he aware that not only is North Ayrshire a disaster area for unemployment, but that figures show that it is also another disaster area for the long-term unemployed, many of whom have been unemployed for over a year? When will the right hon. Gentleman get off his backside and stop sending his hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and sport to Spain to attend football matches—with no apparent benefit—and start worrying about unemployment in the North Ayrshire area?

Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's great concern about unemployment in North Ayrshire, particularly the long-term unemployed. However, I should not have expected that even he would accuse me of inaction. He must bear in mind what has been done to help the area. As part of the West Scotland special development area, the North Ayrshire area qualifies for maximum assistance. That was brought in by the Conservative Government, not the Labour Government. Since May 1979 we have made 19 offers of selective financial assistance to firms in the area. That involves over 1,470 new jobs. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Government of inactivity, but I share his concern at the unemployment figures.

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On 10 June 1982, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 314,800 or 14·1 per cent. We have substantially increased the programme of special measures in the current financial year, but our strategy of controlling inflation within a sound financial framework, and restoring competitiveness, is the best way to improve employment prospects, both in Scotland and elsewhere; and I am encouraged by the progress that we are making.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that the non-seasonally adjusted figure is 341,200 and that that is up by 16,500 since last month, representing 15·3 per cent. of the population? When will the Under-Secretary understand that the policies that he repeats month after month at the Dispatch Box are proving to be an abject failure and a disaster? Will he agree to change course and do something for the unemployed in Scotland instead of repeating, ad nauseam, policies that do not work, and cannot work?

Mr. Fletcher: Policies that reduce inflation, reduce wage settlements, reduce interest rates and improve exports and the balance of payments can only be good for Scotland, despite what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Minister prepared to hold out any realistic hope, with present policies, of a significant reduction in this appalling figure, at least over the remainder of the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the increase in unemployment has been dramatically reduced, but it is still increasing, and is likely to do so, at least for some months yet. The right hon. Gentleman should not disagree with the Government's policies, as they are close to his policies on expenditure when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite the unacceptable rate of unemployment, there is a


growing public realisation that there are no easy answers to the problem and that the Government's economic policy provides the only long-term hope for the unemployed? Does he further agree that this was demonstrated by the positive swing from Labour to Conservative in the Coatbridge and Airdrie by-election?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the by-election at Coatbridge and Airdrie and in the local government elections in Scotland it was obvious that the population of Scotland had far more sense in these matters than Labour Members.

Mr. Thomas Clarke: Is the Minister aware that the swing to Labour in the Coatbridge and Airdrie by-election, compared with the swing in the two elections in 1974—which resulted in a Labour Government—would lead to a Labour Government with an even bigger majority in a general election? Is he further aware that the lack of confidence in the Government's policies, particularly on unemployment, displayed by the electorate of Coatbridge and Airdrie is widely reflected among the voters of Scotland, who look for an early opportunity to give a similar verdict on those policies?

Mr. Fletcher: I am happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House and to Scottish questions. We look forward to further contributions from him. However, I am sure that he will in future be more accurate, because my awareness, and that of the psephologists, is that the Coatbridge and Airdrie result, reflected throughout the country, would increase the Government's majority.

Mr. Myles: Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents in Buckie find it difficult to understand why, despite an unemployment rate of 14·3 per cent. in the area, he has taken away assisted area status, whereas assisted area status is retained for areas such as Inverness, which also have the advantage of Highlands and Islands Development Board grants.

Mr. Fletcher: I fully appreciate the disappointment in my hon. Friend's constituency following the Government's decision on assisted area status. These have been difficult decisions to make. Nevertheless, following those decisions, 72 per cent. of the working population of Scotland still remain in assisted areas, and Scotland still has the largest special development area in the United Kingdom. Scotland has done well out of the reappraisal of regional policy that this Government introduced.

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. To enable me to call the Opposition Front Bench, I shall allow a minute extra at the end of questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). Why did the Secretary of State not answer the question about the appalling level of unemployment in Scotland? Is he not ashamed of the 341,000 unemployed in Scotland, a figure that has doubled during his period of office? If not, he should be. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State stop making all these optimistic noises about an upturn in the economy, when every indicator from the CBI, the Fraser Institute and everyone else predicts further increases in the already tragically high level of unemployment in Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the impact of the world economy, even on Scotland. Scotland cannot be considered in isolation. The action of my right hon. Friend with regard to these matters is perfectly clear. He is doing everything possible within and without Scotland to make sure that unemployment levels are reduced. Indeed, under my right hon. Friend's leadership, the level of unemployment in Scotland compares very favourably with the rest of the United Kingdom—unlike the record of the right hon. Gentleman, who, while Secretary of State, had the satisfaction of doubling unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980

Mr. Dewar: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will have further consultations with the procurators fiscal to discuss the operation of part II of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, relating to procedure and evidence; and whether he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): There is a continuous flow of information from procurators fiscal to the Crown Office on the operation of all parts of the 1980 Act. Both I and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate have had discussions with procurators fiscal and other interested parties on the operation of the Act, and will continue to do so with a view to identifying any difficulties being experienced in connection with the implementation of this legislation.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland accept that great administrative problems arise from the administration of judicial examination? Will he also look at the problems arising from section 2 of the Act, which allows the detention of suspects for questioning by the police? Is he aware that the confidence that he and his colleagues have expressed is not shared by the Criminal Court of Appeal? Has he seen the recent judgment, where Lord Emslie referred to the problem of confusion created by the detention powers, and Lord Cameron said:
It is not, indeed, immediately apparent what useful purpose this innovative and possibly confusing provision is designed to serve.
In those circumstances, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider further amending legislation, as this is clearly an unsatisfactory situation?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: A number of points are developing as we gain experience of the working of judicial examination. As to the recent case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I think that he is referring specifically to the problem of the caution that is given by the police where the powers of detention are exercised. The hon. Gentleman may ruefully reflect that when the measure was in Committee I referred to the efficacy of the warning that is required to be given under that section. I accept and recognise, as the Court of Appeal has said, that there are two stages at which a warning must be given. If the police detain someone without questioning him further, the caution required by section 2(7) is sufficient. However, if the police ask questions, it is clear that they must give a common law caution, and that instruction has already gone from the Crown Office to the police.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 is going down very well in the courts, largely because of the way in which the sheriff principals, such as Sheriff Principal Taylor, are handling it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In spite of some of the somewhat hysterical over-reactions originally given to this legislation, it is clear that a number of parts of the Act are working extremely well. Despite the fact that it was thought that the police would abuse the powers given to them, a number of people from interested sections involved in the administration of justice in Scotland recognise that they have used them both reasonably and sparingly.

Kilmarnock

Mr. Lambie: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will meet the procurator fiscal of Kilmarnock, to discuss the administration of justice in Kilmarnock.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no immediate plans to meet the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock. From time to time I do visit the offices of procurators fiscal and discuss relevant matters with them.

Mr. Lambie: When the Solicitor-General for Scotland meets the procurator fiscal of Kilmarnock, will he ask him when he will take action on the case referred to him claiming that certain consultants employed by Ayrshire and Arran health board were guilty of irregularities? People in Ayrshire are concerned that when the procurator fiscal is dealing with consultants they must wait a long time for a decision, whereas when he is dealing with councillors, decisions are given overnight. When will the procurator fiscal give a decision in this case?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of the investigations to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Although I should not like any unnecessary delay before a decision is taken, whether or not it is appropriate to instruct proceedings in this matter, at this stage it would be wholly inappropriate if I were to respond and give any indication about whether a criminal prosecution will be mounted before the investigations are complete.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that there is great resentment among the low-paid health workers in Ballochmyle hospital, who cannot get an increase in pay, while these consultants, who are already well paid, are able to boost their large incomes by what appears to be the illegal provision of private beds? Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman must make a statement about this matter, otherwise the rumours and concern will spread far and wide in Ayrshire.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: For once, the hon. Gentleman has advisedly chosen his words carefully. As I have already said, it would be wholly inappropriate for me now to give any view about whether it is right to institute criminal proceedings.

Scottish Law Commission

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Scottish Law Commission.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: While I have no meetings arranged, I meet the Scottish Law Commission from time to time to discuss all aspects of law reform which it is presently considering.

Mr. Canavan: At the risk of being thrown out for being tedious and repetitive, may I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will remind the Scottish Law Commission that we have been waiting for well over a decade for the publication of its Bill to abolish warrant sales? Is there any chance at all during the lifetime of this Parliament of such a Bill being sponsored by the Government to abolish once and for all this medieval and barbaric practice?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If nothing else, the hon. Gentleman has tenacity on this point. We are awaiting a report from the Scottish Law Commission on the law of diligence. The part that concerns the hon. Gentleman—his concern is shared on both sides of the House—is the aspect that relates to warrant sales. The hon. Gentleman probably recognises that every mature legal system in the world requires an end process to bring to a conclusion the differences between a creditor and a debtor. If the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about arrangements that are made for the public sale of the property in a debtor's home, I have some sympathy with that point. Personally, I await with great interest the proposals that will emanate from the Scottish Law Commission, which I expect will not be long in coming.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The answers are getting as long as the questions.

Mr. Ancram: Will my hon. and learned Friend discuss once again with the Law Commission the problems of cost and time arising out of accused persons changing their pleas to guilty on the day of the trial diet? Will he ask it to look again at the ways in which the whole paraphernalia of setting up a trial can be avoided when such a change of plea is likely?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The problem of people changing their pleas at a later date is essentially an administrative one. There are a number of schemes which both I and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate are considering. I hope that that, in conjunction with a number of provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, will result in an acceleration in the times for diets.

Mr. Maclennan: Are the Government nearing completion of their consideration of the Law Commission's proposals on aliment and divorce, and do they consider that this is a subject on which they could bring forward proposals for reform?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is recognised that the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are useful. They are being considered by the Scottish Home and Health Department and I await with interest its views on them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall allow an extra minute on this question.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What is the current state with regard to custody orders as between England and Scotland,


and what progress has been made on an international convention for custody orders for children of divorced parents?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I remember your recent stricture, Mr. Speaker. It is recognised that there

continue to be problems over custody orders, particularly in an international context. The Scottish Law Commission, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and myself are aware of the concern that this can cause to parents in such a difficult position.

Agriculture and Fisheries (Ministerial Meetings)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meetings in Brussels of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 28 June and the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 28 and 29 June.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council.
Agreement was reached on devaluations in the green rates of Denmark, Ireland and Greece to reflect the effects of the recent monetary realignment in the EMS. The French Government had requested a selective devaluation of their green rate for pigmeat and sheepmeat and the Belgian Government wanted equivalent adjustments to those granted to the French. These arrangements for France and Belgium were not agreed.
The Council had further discussions on the new framework regulation on wine, and these will be resumed at the next Council.
Together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State in my Department, I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council.
After a general discussion on the Commission's proposals on total allowable catches and quotas, there were a series of bilateral discussions between the Commission and individual member States on establishing priorities. In the course of the meeting it became apparent that the Danish Minister was not prepared at this meeting to negotiate towards a settlement of the common fisheries policy. However, at the end of the meeting the Commission tabled new proposals on the total allowable catches and quotas, and these will be considered at the next meeting of the Council in the second half of July. I shall consult the industry on these proposals.

Mr. Norman Buchan: This tiny mouse of a statement conceals a major surrender by the Government. The Government were preparing to surrender on quotas and limits, and their bacon was saved by the Danes. That was Danish bacon with a vengeance. Is it not the case that the quota agreement that the Minister was prepared to accept was half of that which would be determined by the amount of fish in our waters? Is it not a fact that in its manifesto for the last election campaign the Tory Party said that, unless the limits and the quotas were right, it was prepared to go it alone? Are the Government prepared to go it alone? If they do, they will have the support of the Opposition.
The Minister has been telling us that he has the support of the industry, but he should read the fishing industry newspapers more often. "No deal" say the fishermen's organisations in Britain. We have to stick by the decision, which was repeated in the House year after year, that there would be no surrender beyond the 12-mile exclusive limit and the 50-mile dominant preference.
All the indications are that the Minister is prepared to surrender on both those points. He is opening up the East

Coast, for example, through the bilateral agreement with the French. If he is prepared to put forward proposals on 12-mile and 50-mile limits we shall support him.
Would it not have been more sensible, instead of entering into a squalid arrangement under derogation in 1972, if we had decided that we would do what other independent nations have been able to do and stand by a 200-mile limit?

Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will never have the pleasure of seeing me come to the Dispatch Box with an agreement that the industry does not support. Therefore, I am willing to be judged upon our ability to obtain an agreement that the industry wants and agrees with. I presume that the House will be only too eager to support an agreement that the industry requires.
I have complete and detailed agreement with the industry as to our objectives on quotas. I am glad to say that we have made some further progress towards achieving these. Therefore, the only agreement that I would recommend to the House is one that provides quotas satisfactory to the industry, a substantial improvement in the access arrangements that have operated in living memory, and a secure and expanding future for the industry.

Mr. Buchan: Would the Minister agree, for example on the six-mile limit and on the six-mile dominant preference only? Would he agree on only 34 per cent. on quotas, reduced from the two-thirds that the Tory Party manifesto argued for? If not, he should stand by the pledge that he gave in 1979, that in the absence of such an agreement the Government would not hesitate to take the necessary measures on their own.

Mr. Walker: As far as I know, no political party, or the Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his wildest moments, ever suggested two-thirds quotas. The hon. Gentleman waves a document at me. If that is the manifesto, let him quote the promise about two-thirds of the quotas.

Mr. Buchan: The manifesto says something that is even stronger:
United Kingdom waters contained more fish than those of the rest of the Community countries put together".
Will the right hon. Gentleman stand by that?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has been exposed once again in making a false allegation.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister accept that, as he is in the process of negotiating a new common fisheries policy, any question of historic rights to breach the 12-mile limit ought to be disregarded? Does he accept that, if chaos exists because of his failure to secure a policy, it his duty to ensure that the United Kingdom fishing grounds are protected from ravishment by Common Market vessels?

Mr. Walker: My only objective in negotiating is to provide British fishermen, including Scottish fishermen, with a better future than they have had for many years, since we lost the Icelandic waters. If I cannot attain that objective, and the industry does not agree that I can attain it, I shall come to the Dispatch Box and say that there is no agreement.

Sir Peter Mills: All of us who think about these matters acknowledge what the Minister is doing—maintaining a firm stand in the interests of British


fishermen. Will he bear in mind that the reaction of the Danes is a serious setback and that he may have to make unilateral plans to deal with this and to protect fishermen, particularly in the South-West of England?

Mr. Walker: This illustrates the failure of the Labour Government to obtain any agreement, and the failure so far of the present Government to obtain agreement. This creates a much worse problem for our fishermen than there would be if a sane and sensible agreement had been obtained. As to the immediate problems of the fishing industry, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government have so far provided twice as much aid to the industry as did the Labour Government.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it true that the Danish Government are asking for free fishing without quotas? How can that be a sensible policy? Since the Danish Presidency which begins next month will take us beyond the end of this year, will the Danes achieve their objective by refusing to come to an agreement in the next six months?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman says, the main prize of a common fisheries policy is a quota system which is strictly enforced. There would be no point in a common fisheries policy without that ingredient. Denmark is alone in the view that for other than two species no quotas should be applied. I am sure that that would suit the type of fishing in which Denmark has been involved for some time, but it cannot form the basis of a fishing policy.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Why has the right hon. Gentleman done worse for England than the Secretary of State seems to have done for Scotland? What concessions between six miles and 12 miles has the right hon. Gentleman given to the French? How does he intend to prevent the concessions from escalating into a massive increase in take from those waters?

Mr. Walker: No concessions have been agreed with anybody. There has been no agreement whatsoever on access proposals. So far in the negotiations we have obtained substantial improvements on the question of historic rights for many parts of the coastline that compare with anything in living memory. We have achieved a substantial improvement for our coastal fishermen as a whole. I hope that there will be further improvements. Many of our fishermen wish to continue to enjoy historic rights in other nations' coastal waters and we have negotiated for that.

Mr. Robert Hicks: On the specific question of access to the six-mile to 12-mile band, and in particular in relation to the French, what safeguards has my right hon. Friend obtained and what additional safeguards does he hope to achieve in respect of controlling the catch that the French may take if they are allowed to continue to fish within that band?

Mr. Walker: The Commission has accepted that on 1 January, or when agreement is reached—whichever is the earlier—the first ever enforcement provisions will come into force. One fishing organisation—that mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—queried control and said that there would not be adequate penalties. I was pleased to inform it that the

penalties already approved by the House of a fine of £50,000 maximum for any one offence with the confiscation of equipment would apply.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Has not the right hon. Gentleman blackmailed those in the industry to agree to whatever proposals he can get so that they receive some subsidy from him to help them in the chaos that they are experiencing? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do for the deep water ports? Is he aware that the port of Hull, for example, had 103 vessels 10 years ago and now has only 21, half of which are not fishing? About 135,000 tonnes of fish were landed there 10 years ago and only just over 25,000 tonnes are landed today. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has done nothing for them, that there is no third party agreement and no compensation and that thousands of fishermen are unemployed?

Mr. Walker: It is untrue that I have at any stage tried to bargain or, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, blackmail those in the industry to accept subsidies in exchange for an agreement. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his allegation because it is totally without foundation. He knows more than anybody that the decline in the long-distance fleet took place primarily during the Labour Government's period in office.

Mr. David Myles: Now that negotiations have again broken down, will my right hon. Friend soon announce an aid programme for the industry, especially for the hard-pressed pelagic sector?

Mr. Walker: We are reviewing the figures on further aid submitted by the industry. The current position varies from one sector of the industry to another. Some sectors have had larger catches and better prices this year.

Mr. John Prescott: Does the Minister recognise that other countries have been subsidising their fleets to keep them at a certain level, whereas in the United Kingdom there has been a total collapse of ports such as Hull, which is facing a crisis and is in the hands of the banks? Does he recognise that the difference between his approach and that of the Danes is that he is prepared to accept the voice of the industry whereas in Denmark the parliamentary committee has to be satisfied before an agreement is accepted?

Mr. Walker: No one can accuse me of not coming to the House immediately following each meeting that I have had and submitting to the Scrutiny Committee every document involved. I shall not be accused of not doing that. The hon. Member must be pleased that the present Government have doubled the aid that the previous Government gave to the industry.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the industry needs an agreement in the near future? Will he repeat the pledge that he gave to the House earlier, that if the Danes continue to veto an agreement the Government will not allow fishing up to our beaches by the end of this year?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not satisfactory to argue that it is in our interests not to have an exclusive 12-mile limit so that we can fish within another State's 12-mile limit? Will he abandon the Government's decision not to


press ahead with the policy adopted by successive Governments, including the last Labour Government, that there should be an exclusive 12-mile limit with the phasing out of all historic rights?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman discovered when he was involved in these activities, the Labour Government got nowhere near to a negotiating position, or to an agreement satisfactory to our industry. Even now, with plenty of negotiations still to come, the access proposals for the British fishing industry are better now than at any time in living memory.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Have the new proposals from the Commission moved closer to or further from the Government's negotiating targets? If all that stands between the British fishing industry and a settlement is the Danish interest, will the Minister not hesitate to seek to persuade his colleagues to accept the precedent established at the agricultural price-fixing and proceed by majority voting?

Mr. Walker: I would not proceed on majority voting, believing as I do that it would be completely against Britain's interests. I would not argue for it when it suited me and argue against it when it did not.
I was asked whether the latest proposals were an improvement. The proposals were tabled last night and delivered after the Council meeting ended. I have not had time to discuss or study them in detail, but I understand from preliminary observations by officials that they show some further improvement in our quota arrangements.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members on the Government Benches and the five on the Opposition Benches who have tried to catch my eye—if they are brief.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend has said that the industry's agreement is required before he can present a case to the House. Does he mean all major sections of the industry and not just a so-called majority consensus? Would it not help the House in considering the various proposals if he were prepared to say what legal powers Britain has to exclude French and other EEC vessels from fishing up to our beaches after 31 December if there is no revised common fisheries policy?

Mr. Walker: We have expressed our view and interpretation of the treaty and the statements in it. My hon. Friend has asked me what in my interpretation constitutes the fishing industry. So far, in every detail that I have negotiated, I have carried the whole fishing industry with me. In the detailed and prolonged talks that I had with those in the industry in the past two days they were still in agreement with every detail of my negotiating position.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the widely published reports that he was prepared to accept a settlement that fell far short of the requirements of the House and the commitments of the Conservative Party manifesto and which has already been denounced by a large sector of the industry, specifically by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and that he was prevented from accepting that sell-out by the Danes doing what he should have been doing and asking for more?
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman wants the industry to give its unpressured and considered consent to

the sell-out, why does he not announce the vital aid that it needs to keep going? If withholding that announcement is not blackmail, what is?

Mr. Walker: It is unacceptable for the hon. Gentleman to talk about withholding aid when this Government's record on aid to the industry is so much better than that of any previous Government. The NFFO has had two lots of talks with me in the past 12 days and at neither was it critical of the negotiating position that I was taking.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend treat the Opposition's offer of support in this matter as the dangerous booby-trapped device that it is? Will he reflect on the implications of the remarks attributed to him in The Daily Telegraph today that the one country that did not respect quotas was popular with its fishermen? This country has a greater interest than any other in achieving an agreed policy.

Mr. Walker: Every fishing organisation and every fisherman I have spoken to recognises that to obtain a secure future we need proper quota and enforcement arrangements in Community waters.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is there not a stark contrast between the way in which the Government moved swiftly to protect the interests of the Falkland Islanders by establishing a 200-mile exclusive zone there and the way in which they are refusing to protect the interests of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members?

Mr. Walker: I am sure that we would be willing to accept all the historic fishing rights of the Falklands to operate in our 12-mile limit.

Mr. Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the situation? He has rightly asserted the importance of maintaining the agreement of the industry, and claims that he has that agreement, but the NFFO says that the proposals do not constitute the basis of an acceptable and honourable settlement. Which is correct?

Mr. Walker: The proposals that the federation was referring to were those of the Commission. I am in complete agreement with the industry about changes that we require on access, quotas and other details. The proposals that the NFFO was referring to were not proposals that I had made to the industry, but the current proposals of the Commission. My hon. Friend can check with the leaders of the NFFO. I have had discussion after discussion with them, and they do not disagree with my negotiating position.

Mr. Thomas Torney: In view of the many occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman has had to come to the House and apologise for the continual procrastination of the Common Market on fishing matters, will he take unilateral action—we have waited long enough for the Common Market—and give aid to save what is left of our industry?

Mr. Walker: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, may I say that I remember that he made similar comments from his anti-Community posture every time that we had disputes over lamb. I hope that I shall have the same success on fishing that I had on lamb.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I help my right hon. Friend? Is it not the case that the British


fishing industry has declined recently compared with the industries of some of our European partners? Would not an objective test of my right hon. Friend's success be whether that trend is reversed, particularly as we apparently own more than half the fish.

Mr. Walker: If my hon. Friend studies the matter, he will see that the decline of the British industry has been closely connected with the loss of Icelandic waters. Some improvements have occurred in the British fishing industry in coastal waters.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I recognise the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's claim about consultation with the industry and taking it with him, but is he not being a little arrogant and over-optimistic in giving almost a right of veto to an industry which is divided in its interests and, like farmers, is notoriously reluctant to accept that any Government can give it what it wants?

Mr. Walker: I had only two choices—to work closely with the industry, or not to do so. I chose to work closely with the industry.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman carry out a comparative study of the changes in conditions and quality of fish stock in Icelandic and British waters over the past 10 years? If he did so, would he expect to conclude that the protestations of my right hon. and hon. Friends from fishing ports are entirely justified?
On a wider note, will the right hon. Gentleman estimate whether the share of the Commission budget devoted to the structure and subsidy of agriculture will be greater next year than it was last year?

Mr. Walker: That question is not related to my statement. One of the rewards of getting a CFP is that there would then be European investment in the structure of the fishing industry.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Why is it that on today's statement and the statement of a week or two ago the Minister has been unwilling to give us information about exactly what the Commission proposes on exclusive limits and access? Will he tell us exactly what the Commission proposes and exactly what he was apparently willing to accept on exclusive limits and access? Is it not a fact that he has been frightened to tell the House those details because he knows that the House would recognise them for what they are—a sell-out?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that all the documents have been made available to the House. They were passed to the Scrutiny Committee, which called for a debate on them, and I am certain that we shall have a debate on them. I have not agreed to any proposals. The right hon. Gentleman has got it totally wrong. The House has the information, and I have not agreed to anything.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to a supplementary answer given to me yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. I asked:
Is the hon. Gentleman … aware that there are disturbing rumours that in future RAF Kemble is to be used as a maintenance depot for cruise weapons and/or the storage of chemical weapons? Will he categorically deny these rumours?
In answer to that part of my question the hon. Gentleman said:
In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the United States Air Force is examining the available facilities and, unfortunately, has not yet been able to divulge anything to me about its intentions."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 741.]
Later yesterday afternoon, in reply to a question from Harlech TV, the USAF public relations officer said that if the USAF used Kemble it would do so for general supplies:
some of which might be used in the cruise system".
It is incredible that a Minister of the Crown, in answer to a properly tabled question, was unable or unwilling to give information which the USAF was good enough to give to the media later the same day. I believe that that was either an attempt to mislead the House or a gross contempt of the House, bearing in mind—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can already answer the hon. Gentleman. I have been patient in allowing him to make his point, but it is not a point of order for me. The answer that a Minister gives to a question is a matter for him. It is not my responsibility and it is not a point of order on which I can rule. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman and have allowed him leeway to which he was not really entitled. If he has a valid point of order, I will listen to it.

Mr. Stoddart: May I complete my point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order, I shall be glad to hear it. It is my business to rule on a genuine point of order.

Mr. Stoddart: When a Minister has clearly misled the House, Mr. Speaker I believe it is your practice to give him the opportunity to make a personal statement. I should like your advice about how, if the Minister refuses to make a personal statement, I can ask a question that is in order which will enable—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot say that the Minister has misled the House. It is the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but it might not be the Minister's. I am not involved in this.

Victims of Violent Crimes

4 pm

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the help given to victims of violent crime.
All hon. Members, especially those representing urban areas, will be aware of the appalling growth of violent crime in our towns and cities. Rarely does a weekend go by in my constituency without disturbing news of someone being mugged or someone's home being broken into, lives shattered and people left helpless after gangs of marauding youngsters have ransacked homes for little or no financial gain. On Merseyside a home is broken into every 20 minutes. One crime is committed every four minutes. Yet for all the evidence of the scale of the problem, precious little has been done to improve the help that is given to the victim.
My Bill sets out to make a small contribution in three areas and to redress the imbalance between the rights of the offender and the rights of their victim.
First, the Bill would establish statutory victim support schemes in every local authority. It would be their job to complement the work already being done by voluntary organisations which, with the best will in the world, are unable to provide comprehensive cover for the entire country. On Merseyside, volunteers such as Mrs. Joan Jonker of the local Victims of Violence organisation, do an excellent job, but they are the first to point out the inadequacy of simply relying on volunteers.
Under the terms of the Bill, once the police have been notified of an offence, they would immediately get in touch with the victim support unit, which in turn would arrange a visit to the victim. No one should underestimate the value of help, comfort, advice and administrative assistance at a moment of great personal desolation. Yet, at present, apart from the police taking details of the crime, a victim is often left in isolation and fear, haunted by the prospect of their assailant returning. A much more practical and sensitive response is required.
The support unit would assess the needs of the victim and then co-ordinate the response—help perhaps from the DHSS in replacing stolen electricity or gas money or the rent money; perhaps a visit from the doctor if that is needed or a visit from meals on wheels or the home help service, provided through the social services department. The installation of a security system might be needed—something as simple as a lock on the door or a burglar alarm—or help in obtaining sheltered accommodation through the local housing department.
That type of immediate aid, comfort, support and help requires more than voluntary efforts could possibly provide, operating as they do without any major financial backing. The pitiful Government subsidy last year to the National Association of Victim Support Schemes was the princely sum of £23,000, which was divided between the national headquarters and 60 local schemes—about £380 per scheme. There is the strongest possible case to improve that provision. I have tried to impress that view on the Home Secretary and the Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security when I and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), have been to see those Ministers about the matter.
It is worth mentioning that the last available figures in the House of Commons Library showed that in 1981 349,000 homes were broken into and approximately 15,000 muggings took place. It was further estimated by Roger Berthoud, writing in The Times, that for every pound that is spent on offenders about 1p is spent on victims—a ratio of 100:1. That is a grotesque position. A great deal of sentiment is expressed about victims, but there is no point in being long on sentiment while short on cash. Parliament must make better provision to aid voluntary groups when they exist, and to make statutory provision where they do not.
By way of example of what can be done I should like to pay tribute to Liverpool city council which, following representations from me, has initiated a pilot scheme to provide intruder alarms in the homes of 300 elderly people. However, that is insufficient and the scheme needs to be extended, particularly to all partnership areas. The Secretary of State for the Environment should sponsor more such initiatives through the urban aid programme.
How we treat the vulnerable and the weakest members of our community is a touchstone of a civilised society. If more work was done to prevent crime—for example, by preventing easy access into elderly people's homes—much unnecessary cost in financial as well as human terms might be avoided.
I move now to the second area covered by my Bill. There needs to be a reform of the present terms of reference, scope and practice of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The reforms would include the disclosure of all relevant information by the CICB to victims and their legal advisers that would be helpful or necessary to the victim's application for compensation. There should also be a right of appeal from decisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and local boards should be established for the sake of accessibility and to improve the promptness of investigation and decision. It cannot, be right that two Merseyside mothers whom I met recently had to wait 18 months for their claim to be settled, following the tragic murder of their two sons. It is also well worth remembering that they told the hon. Member for West Derby and me that they had never had, in the time since the tragic events occurred, a visit from a local authority welfare worker or social worker. One of the families was forced to go to a finance company to get a loan to pay for the funeral of the son. That local authority, which was not the Liverpool city council but another Merseyside council, has a duty to implement the type of statutory scheme that I outlined earlier. Along with the reforms that I advocate in the criminal injuries procedure, that would mean that a more compassionate response would be forthcoming.
The Government should also examine the ludicrous situation whereby a victim is unable to claim legal aid when pleading his case before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. There is more than a touch of Gilbertian irony in the present administration of the legal aid system, whereby the offender but not the victim can usually easily claim legal aid. Similarly, the victim should have complete access to information about the injuries he sustained and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. A duty should be placed upon the courts to determine and place on record the victim's injuries.
My third point deals with the relationship of the victim to the legal process. My Bill would enable the victim to


appeal against a sentence imposed on an offender which in the view of the victim or his relatives bears no relation to the scale of the injuries sustained. Just as the offender is able to appeal against a sentence because he feels it is too harsh, so the victim should be able to appeal when he believes the sentence is unrealistic. This safeguard would in itself lead to a more rational system of sentencing. Along with many other hon. Members, I greatly regret that our prisons are full to overflowing with vagrants, alcoholics, fine defaulters and prostitutes. They are people who should be receiving help and support from society—not prison sentences. In the case of those who have inflicted suffering and injury on the weak, the elderly and the most vulnerable, society must act to protect them from the perpetrators of such callous, violent crimes.
At present, it would appear that there is no such person in law as the victim of a crime. A victim, in the eyes of the law, appears to be a person who may or may not be called upon to give evidence tending to convict or acquit the person alleged to have committed an offence. If the person is acquitted, the courts appear to have little further interest in the matter, even if the victim has been gravely injured. On the other hand, if the accused person is convicted, the courts may or may not make a compensation order on behalf of the victim. That cannot be done unless an application has been previously lodged. That really is too cavalier a way to treat those who have been on the receiving end of all that has occurred. My Bill sets out to redress the imbalance between the victim and the offender.
In England and Wales there are nearly two and a half times as many cases of wounding every year as there were 10 years ago. Robberies involving violence have doubled in the same period. In London, where nearly one-quarter

of all English crimes take place, wounding has increased by 50 per cent. between 1975 and today. Such offences are not confined to London. In Nelson, Lancashire, an 81-year-old woman was killed for the £5 that she had in her home. In Manchester a church service has been switched from the evening to the afternoon because of attacks on members of the congregation.
I end where I began, in Liverpool, with the stories of two constituents. One lady aged 80 years was attacked in her flat and raped. Her screams for help were ignored. The rape took place at 5 o'clock in the morning. By the time a neighbour realised that she was screaming the assailant had escaped. The 80-year-old lady was left physically injured and severely shocked.
The other case concerns a council tenant living on the Chatsworth Street estate in the Edge Hill constituency. He is a man without legs and, therefore, confined to a wheelchair. He said of the break-in of his home:
Someone came in the bedroom window and hit me with a cobblestone. He hit me five times. He took 40 cigarettes and the gold watch that was given to me when my legs were taken off.
These are only two of many cases but the plight of the victims demonstrates more vividly than any speech why the House should pass the Bill and do more to help those who are victims of our violent and sometimes sick society.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Alton, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. William Pitt, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Cyril Smith and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIMES

Mr. David Alton accordingly presented a Bill to improve the help given to victims of violent crime: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 July and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Local Government Finance (No. 2) [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish supplementary rates and supplementary precepts; to require rates and precepts to be made or issued for complete financial years; to provide for the making of substituted rates and the issue of substituted precepts; to regulate proceedings for challenging the validity of rates and precepts; to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of local authorities and with respect to relief from rates in enterprise zones; to amend the provision relating to block grant and to make new provisions for auditing the accounts of local authorities and other public bodies, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of grants to rating authorities under paragraph 29 of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment.

Mr. King: The resolution has been tabled to cover one small amendment which was agreed to in another place to meet representations from local authorities and industry. It is a small, technical point on rate relief for enterprise zones. There was no power to give rate relief for properties straddling an enterprise zone boundary. The resolution provides power for relief to be given for part of a property as well as for a whole property. Hon. Members will find that under the rules of the House the whole resolution has to be tabled. The only difference will be that further provision will be made for relief from rates in enterprise zones.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Minister has a unique facility for claiming that something of considerable importance on which the Government have made serious mistakes is a minor technical matter. As the Government have had to introduce a second money resolution, we expected the Secretary of State to be present. As we shall be discussing the most contentious of the Lords amendments next Wednesday, we shall expect the presence of the Secretary of State. Apart from moving the Bill's Second Reading, he has not participated in the Bill at any stage. I regard that as a serious discourtesy to the House. The right hon. Gentleman introduced a highly controversial Bill. He read the speech that was provided for him by the Department on Second Reading and then disappeared, as usual, leaving the Minister with the shovel to follow the Lord Mayor's procession.
This is not a correction of a minor technicality because it is yet another example—it may not be the last—of the complete disarray of legislation that has been introduced by the Department of the Environment. There are still anomalies in the Housing Act 1980 which to this day have not been put right by the Government. In many respects the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is not worth the paper on which it is printed. The Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill, with which we shall be proceeding after the money resolution has been passed, has been rewritten so often that its own mother would not recognise it.
Next week when we debate the remaining Lords amendments we shall come to the fourth version of clause 4, which has been doubled to be clause 8. It is worse than the version that left this place a few weeks ago. In addition to all the other errors, omissions and inadequacies of this singularly ill-fated proposed legislation, the Government have found that they must make a new long title. The Minister did not say that an amendment to the long title is necessary to accommodate the amendment and the second money resolution.
The amendments to which we shall turn are not really amendments to the Bill. They are amendments to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, a measure with its own disreputable and scarred history. It was introduced in the House of Lords. It was withdrawn and reintroduced in this place in a different and partly emasculated form. In Committee large parts of it were junked like so much debris. Two years after the enactment of the Bill the Government return with some parts that they omitted by mistake.
In moving the resolution the Minister said, as though it were nothing to do with him or the Government—he seemed to suggest that it was an act of God—that there is no power in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act to give rate relief to concerns that straddle enterprise zones and non-enterprise zones. There is no power because the Government forgot to provide that power when they were drafting the Bill. That shambles of a Bill did not include that power because the Government had not thought of it. The Government made up that Bill, as they did the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill, as they went along. What is more, they discovered their error late in the day.
The House spent six months on the Local Government Finance (No. 1) and (No. 2) Bills. The original measure was introduced in November. It was withdrawn and reintroduced in December. It spent a properly long time in Committee and it was considered on Report. During that period the Government failed to discover that there was no power to give rate relief for concerns straddling enterprise zones and non-enterprise zones. If the Government had taken slightly longer to discover the omission, they would not have been able to amend the Bill.
The Bill left this place without amendments of the sort that the Government now wish to make, and if it had returned from another place unamended it would not have been possible to amend it here. In that event, the Government would have had to introduce separate legislation. The Government would have had to have a Local Government (No. 3), (No. 11) or even (No. 19) Bill. We lose track of the numbers of the Bills. The only reason they have been able to rectify the mistake is that there are no rules of order in the House of Lords and that it is open to the Government to move amendments in the House of Lords outside the scope of the money resolution. But for that they would not have been able to deal with the matter.
When the money resolution is carried, we shall debate the substance of the amendments. Some of my hon. Friends will make necessary points about them. Let us be absolutely clear, so that we can see the mess that the Government have got themselves into and the way in which they have abused the House of Commons, that those amendments would not be debatable without the resolution.
The House will recall what happened when, under the Labour Government, the Shipbuilding (Redundancy


Payments) Bill went through Parliament. The House of Lords, against the wishes of that Government, inserted into the Bill certain amendments that were outside the scope of the Commons money resolution. When the Bill was brought back to the Floor of the House Mr. Speaker, before the Commons could discuss the amendments in any way, said that the amendments were an abuse of privilege and directed the House without debate to reject those Lords Amendments.
Without the money resolution, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker would have been obliged to follow that precedent and direct the House of Commons to reject without debate these Government amendments. That is a token of the complete shambles into which the Government have got themselves on those matters. That is the knife edge on which the Government have been working. They deserve the utmost censure for their incompetence. We shall want the Secretary of State to be here next week so that he can face the Opposition instead of always leaving the dirty work to another Minister.

Mr. John McWilliam: I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). The Minister did not tell the Committee that it was his intention to remedy the omission that had been made. By using the procedure of laying a money resolution that puts in order amendments coming from another place that would otherwise have been out of order is contempt of the House and should be condemned by right hon. and hon. Members.
In the House we have few enough rights when we try to examine and control the Executive. The Government's move in this tawdry money resolution invites the condemnation of both sides of the House. It shows their contempt for the House when they are trying to sort out the daft concept of enterprise zones.
I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we debate amendments Nos. 6 and 31. It is a point of principle that no Government, if they have the interests of the House at heart, should resort to such subterfuge to clear up what was obviously a mistake.
Had the Minister made it clear to the Committee that the Government had made yet another mistake in the Bill, which is full of mistakes, I have no doubt that we would have understood their point, but to act in this way is contempt of the House and should be condemned as such.

Mr. King: The House has enjoyed the two efforts to try to build a small molehill into a big mountain. There is no mistake in the Bill. If the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) had listened to his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), he would know that there was an omission in the 1980 Act. That point should have been covered at the time, but was not observed. I accept responsibility. I took the Bill through. The right hon. Gentleman need take no responsibility because he was not on the Committee as he was otherwise engaged.
The House scrutinised the Bill. We all failed to spot the mistake. That point could have been picked up in Committee, but it was not. We shall debate the substance of the matter when we come to the amendments. I shall not bore the House with reciting the precedents and the number of times that this action has been taken by Governments. The amendment is sensible and minor. To correct the mistake, a small amendment to the money resolution was needed. I thought that it was the sensible and common sense thing to do. I make no apologies. On balance, I believe that it was the right thing to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to abolish supplementary rates and supplementary precepts; to require rates and precepts to be made or issued for complete financial years; to provide for the making of substituted rates and the issue of substituted precepts; to regulate proceedings for challenging the validity of rates and precepts; to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of local authorities and with respect to relief from rates in enterprise zones; to amend the provision relating to block grant and to make new provisions for auditing the accounts of local authorities and other public bodies, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of grants to rating authorities under paragraph 29 of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance (No 2) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments to the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 5, 6, 31, 13, 32, 14, 25, 27, 29, 15 to 17, 20, 21, 24, 1 to 4, 7, 26, 28, 30, 8, 9, 11,10,12,18, 19, 22 and 23.—[Mr. King.]

Clause 3

BORROWING POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 29, leave out from "(2A)" to end of line 33 and insert
The reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to money borrowed by a local authority includes a reference to the interest for the time being payable in respect of that money.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The House will recall that the purpose of what was clause 3(1), when we last considered it, is to prevent any doubt arising about the creditworthiness of English and Welsh authorities once they no longer have unlimited ability to raise revenue at any time of the year. As originally drafted, the clause adopted the Scottish model of making the interest payable on a local authority's borrowing a first charge on its revenues. That was done by adding to schedule 13(11) of the Local Government Act 1972, in which money borrowed is already secured as a charge on the authority's revenues. However, the majority of prospectuses issued assume that money borrowed under the 1972 Act carries interest as well as principal and that that they are secured as equal charges on an authority's revenues.
Therefore, the amendment makes it clear that the phrase "money borrowed" includes interest. That confirms what many people had already thought to be the position and avoids any problem of discrepancy between existing and future prospectuses. The amendment is an acceptable and welcome clarification for the lending institutions. Like the original provision, it meets any anxieties about the future creditworthiness of local authorities.

Mr. Harry Cowans: We debated this matter at length in Committee. It is a tragedy that the debate in the other place was all about interest or capital as a first demand on local authorities.
Before the Bill, the first demand on a local authority was with those who were employed by it. In the event of a local authority going bankrupt, which was unthinkable until the Bill was introduced, the first charge on a local authority was in respect of those who served it, its employees. I thought that in the other place the substance of the Committee debate would have been picked up.
There was great anxiety that for the first time in local government no thought is to be given to the employees. Provision is made for employees elsewhere. For instance, under companies Act legislation, when the receiver comes in, the first charge on the company is the employee. The debate in the other place concerned only whether capital

or interest should be the first priority for the local authority. The Bill will force local authorities to borrow money from the City at extraordinary rates of interest. It gives no thought to the employees.
4.30 pm
The Bill should be entitled "The Local Government Finance (No. 2)"—or any number up to eight—"Afterthought Bill". The Government are legislating by afterthought. In what he said about the title my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) might have suggested that the word "afterthought" should be included. The Lords amendment is yet another afterthought. It is disgraceful. It takes no account of the situation that existed before the Bill was introduced. Public sector employees were protected, as private sector employees are. The amendment deals only with money and not with people.
I believed that we were elected to this House to protect people's interests, but, having read the amendment, it would appear that I am wrong and that we were sent here to protect capital to the detriment of local government employees. Will the Minister deal with that? The issue was neglected in Committee and again in the other place. We need a concrete answer so that the people who are fortunate—unfortunate, perhaps after the Bill is enacted—enough to be employed in local government know that they have the same protection as they had before the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am well aware of the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) makes, but he would be the first to acknowledge that the amendment and the Government's general proposals in the Bill to add to local authorities' credit-worthiness are very much in the interests of their employees. It is in their interests that their employers' credit rating should be beyond doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C

RATE RELIEF IN ENTERPRISE ZONES

Lords amendment: No. 6, after clause 3, insert the following new clause:
C.—(1) At the end of paragraph 27(1) of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (exemption from rates of certain hereditaments situated in areas designated as enterprise zones) there shall be added the words "or in respect of any part of an exempt hereditament as regards any period during which the area in which that part is situated is so designated.

(2) In paragraph 28 of the said Schedule 32 (mixed hereditaments)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2) (mixed hereditament to be rated as a dwelling of the appropriate rateable value), for the word "dwelling" there shall be substituted the word "dwelling-house"; and
(b) for sub-paragraph (3)(b) (extension of power to make regulations about appeals) there shall be substituted—

(b) the reference to the occupier or person treated as occupier of the hereditament being dissatisfied by the view taken by the rating authority included a reference to the occupier, the person aforesaid or the rating authority being dissatisfied by the view taken by the valuation officer; and".

(3) After the said paragraph 28 there shall be inserted—
"Hereditaments partially within enterprise zones

28A.—(1) As regards any period during which part only of an exempt hereditament (within the meaning of paragraph 27 above) is situated in an area designated as an enterprise


zone, the valuation officer shall determine the portion of the rateable value of the hereditament attributable to the part of the hereditament situated outside the enterprise zone.

(2) Where a determination in respect of a hereditament has been made under sub-paragraph (1) above, the amount of any rates payable in respect of the hereditament shall (subject to sub-paragraph (3)(b) below) be the amount which would be payable in respect of it if its rateable value were equal to the portion of the rateable value which was determined under sub-paragraph (1) above.

(3) Where the hereditament in respect of which a determination has been so made is a mixed hereditament—

(a) the valuation officer shall also determine the portion of the rateable value of the hereditament attributable to any part of it which is used for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings and is situated within the enterprise zone; and
(b) if such a determination is made, the amount of any rates payable in respect of the hereditament shall be the aggregate of the following amounts, namely—

(i) the amount payable under sub-paragraph (2) above, and
(ii) the amount which would be payable in respect of it if it were a dwelling-house of a rateable value equal to the portion of the rateable value determined under paragraph (a) above.

(4) Section 48(6) of the 1967 Act shall, with modifications corresponding to those contained in paragraph 28(3) above, apply also in relation to questions as to the portions mentioned in sub-paragraphs (1) and (3)(a) above.""

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Amendment No. 6 involves privilege.
With this we may take Lords amendment No. 31.

Mr. King: This is the item that we were discussing under the money resolution to deal with the anomaly about exemption from rates for certain hereditaments that straddle enterprise zone boundaries. It is a simple and easily comprehended point.

Mr. Cowans: The Minister says that the point is simple. It is so simple that it did not arise in our Committee proceedings.
Let us examine this second afterthought—we may have many more. Setting up the enterprise zones has created many anomalies. The amendment will create yet another. Parts of a site or factory within an enterprise zone will qualify for a drastic reduction in rates. That will create serious difficulties. I am speaking for myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends may not agree, but I believe that it is nonsense to give only part of a site the advantage. The whole site should be included.
There are many examples of sites straddling enterprise zone boundaries in my constituency and a number in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam).

Mr. King: Team Valley.

Mr. Cowans: Team Valley, part of Blaydon, down to the Tyne and nearly as far as Walker and all the shipyards.
A problem arises if part of a site for a factory is on derelict land which comes just inside the enterprise zone. With my long experience of local government, I appreciate that difficulties are always created when lines are drawn on a map, but they can be got over. The firm may wish

to develop the whole site. The land that comes inside the enterprise zone may not be developable, but it will get rate relief. If the whole site were included, it might encourage the firm to go ahead and thus create extra jobs, which is the aim of enterprise zones.
The Minister will be creating more anomalies than already exist with enterprise zones. Why not go the whole way?

Mr. John McWilliam: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans). We share representation of the largest chunk of the biggest enterprise zone.
Let me give examples of the anomalies that occur. I well recall when the boundaries of the enterprise zone were set. I pointed out that they stopped at the wall of the existing building of T. I. Churchill Ltd. in Blaydon. When I protested about it, I received a letter from the Minister concerned, Lord Bellwin, saying that T. I. Churchill Ltd had the land beyond the factory within the enterprise zone and could develop it for the furtherance of its business. That letter did not go down at all well, because at that time T. I. Churchill Ltd was on a two-day week. In those circumstances, how on earth could it develop the land for the furtherance of its business?
I could enumerate other problems. For example, GKN Galloway is not in the enterprise zone, although it is further in towards the zone than George Johnstone and Company. Both firms are steel stockholders, with plants of identical size, and they compete for the same customers. They are 500 yards apart, but one is in and the other is out.
The problems with the enterprise zones are appalling and ought to be sorted out. I have a letter from Lord Bellwin's office in the Department of the Environment, signed by his private secretary. It says that
consultants commissioned by the Department to monitor the progress of the EZ experiment … will be conducting further interviews with a sample of firms in these areas and … there may well be a limited number of firms in your constituency … The results of the research undertaken last year have recently been published in the Year One Report of the Enterprise Zone Monitoring Study, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library".
A copy is not available in the House of Commons Library. It is not in the catalogue of the House of Commons Library.
I wrote to the Vote Office saying that I required a copy for my constituency interest, and I received a note eventually from the Stationery Office which said:
Dear Mr. McWilliam,
On your demand dated 16 June you have asked for a copy of Year One Report of the Enterprise Zone Monitoring Study. This book is not available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office but is published by Roger Tym and Partners, price £31.57, and is available from 26 Craven Street".
I do not have £31.57 to spare to pay for a study undertaken by the Government. Copies of it should be available for hon. Members so that they can make up their minds on the success or otherwise of the policy. I am fairly certain that most other hon. Members—particularly those on the Opposition Benches—do not have £31.57 to spare to pay for a copy of the study. Yet it is impossible to evaluate the Lords amendment or the subject under consideration unless one has taken the trouble to read the study.
I do not wish to mislead the House, so it is right that I should say that I have tracked down a copy of the report. There is one in the economic research section of the


Library. A copy was bought by it, but it is not available to hon. Members on the same basis as other publications. I could go to that section of the Library and read the report. Unfortunately, I discovered that fact only five minutes before the debate. Therefore, the fact that there is a copy of the report in a section of the Library does not seem to be of great relevance or benefit to hon. Members.
I protest most strongly that the Minister's own Department is misleading hon. Members in saying that information is available when it is not. I also protest because we are having to consider amendments to the Bill, inviting us to do things which may or may not be sensible, when we have no basis on which to judge them. I ask the Minister to go back to his Department and make inquiries about how in future relevant information may be made available to hon. Members. I do not approve of privatisation which deprives hon. Members of the necessary information on which to base the crucial decisions which must be made now and in the future about enterprise zones.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The amendment demonstrates not only that in the past the Government have made a mess of their legislation and have not anticipated problems that might arise, but the inadequate nature of enterprise zones. If the amendment is an attempt to rectify the problems that exist on the boundaries of enterprise zones, it will not succeed.
It enables firms, factories and concerns that straddle the boundary of an enterprise zone to receive, at least to some extent, the benefits of the enterprise zone that are now received by factories, concerns or firms that are inside the enterprise zone. That will not solve the problems that exist for firms that fall inside and outside enterprise zones. It will not rectify the anomalies that exist in the areas where enterprise zones have been established, as I hope to illustrate.
There are two enterprise zones of which I have some knowledge—those in Manchester and Liverpool. When the enterprise zone concept was being proposed and the zones were established, Labour Members told the Government that the zones would not work and would create more problems than they would solve. That was said not only by Labour Members and by members of the Labour Party. Amazingly, most entrepreneurs, business men and industrialists in areas where the zones were to be established also made the point very strongly to the Government.
I have a letter that was sent to me on 29 June 1981 by a body calling itself the Enterprise Zone Action Group. It is based in Manchester and consists of business men, industrialists and people who own enterprises in warehousing, retailing and wholesaling. They wrote to me objecting to the concept of the enterprise zones.
The first of the "principal objections" outlined in the letter was "unfair competition". The letter says that
In the Service sector, rates amount to a substantial proportion of total costs; the ten years rates 'holiday' therefore enables the beneficiary to significantly undercut the charges of established businesses.
The second "principal objection" put forward by the group related to property values, and the letter says that
There is already clear evidence that the capital values of properties outside the Zone have been dramatically reduced as a direct consequence of the proposed Enterprise Zone.

The letter then deals with the crux of the matter—employment prospects. It questions whether enterprise zones—spending initially £1·4 billion—would do anything for employment prospects in the areas where they are to be situated. The letter says that
Existing firms are closing their operation in one location and moving into the Enterprise Zone, throwing people out of work in areas of already high unemployment.
That is interesting, because many firms have moved only a few hundred yards or a mile within the same area. The amendment would clear up only a small part of the boundary problem. The letter goes on to say that
Trafford Park already has an abundant supply of Service industries; newcomers can only trade at the expense of existing businesses. In consequence, we do not believe that Enterprise Zones are any answer to the problem of unemployment and suggest that the concept be abandoned.
That is what the group said on 29 June 1981.
The Manchester enterprise zone has been in existence for a considerable time. I spoke to people in the area, asking them what progress has been made with the enterprise zone and what exactly is happening in Manchester. The people there tell me that the zone is beginning to attract companies, but that the vast majority are local moves, due to boundary problems. No new employment seems to be being created. Most of the companies moving in are warehouses or wholesalers, not manufacturing industries.
I spoke to the city estates officer and the director of industrial development in the city of Manchester. They say that they have attended recent meetings where leases from the council for advance factories and other premises outside the zone are being surrendered by firms so that they can move into the zone. What is happening is a redistribution of employment, not a creation of employment, and the Government are subsidising that redistribution.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Surely it is not redistribution of employment, but redistribution of lack of employment. Is that not particularly insulting, in view of the Government's disgraceful decision this week not to allow Manchester to continue with its intermediate area status, which has clearly been a party political decision?

Mr. Roberts: I entirely agree wih my right hon. Friend, who has a greater vested interest in Manchester than I. My concern for the people there stems from the fact that I was born and bred there, and I hate to see my fellow Mancunians unemployed and suffering as a result of this Government's policies.
Let us consider what the Government have done to justify their enterprise zone policy. They have set up a national study of enterprise zones, and commissioned Roger Tym and Partners, consultants, but they have made sure that the efforts of those consultants will produce a self-fulfilling prophesy by giving them narrow terms of reference. The consultants can judge only what happens inside the enterprise zone, how many jobs come there, and how many are created there. They have not been given terms of reference whereby they could consider the effect of the enterprise zone on the areas in which it is situated. They will not be in a position to produce a report which will prove—if they could—that no new jobs are being generated, or that the number of jobs in general has not been increased by the enterprise zones.
Let us take another enterprise zone, in which I am directly concerned as a Merseyside Member, and that is the enterprise zone in Liverpool, which was established at Speke and which probably covers the largest area of land of any of the enterprise zones. Again, it was not only I and other Merseyside Members who told the Government that it would not work, that it was a peripheral palliative, and that it would not create jobs.
Surprisingly, business men and industrialists in Merseyside were also opposed to the Government's proposals. I received a letter at the time when the enterprise zones were being established from McGregor Cory Warehousing, which has an industrial complex on Dunnings Bridge Road in Bootle in my constituency. The letter was written by a Mr. Singleton, the Liverpool area manager, and it said:
The Public Warehousing Industry is under a serious threat by reason of its inclusion in the Enterprise Zone concept which, amongst other attractions, allows ten years rates free tenure of property. This leaves established businesses outside the Zones at a serious disadvantage.
Local Authority Rates are increasing well beyond general inflation levels … Public Warehouses are affected by the Enterprise Zones legislation more than most other industries because:—Rates account for some 23 per cent. of total costs or just under £5,000 per employee.
Detailed representations have been made to the Minister who has simply brushed aside our arguments despite our having proved quite conclusively that his Officials made serious errors of judgement and fact when they looked into the costs of Public Warehousing.
We do not believe"—
this is what the amendment is about—
that arbitrary lines drawn on maps by Officials in any Government or Public Department should determine the success or failure of an established business. We believe in fair competition"—
the Labour Party believes that; apparently, the Conservative Party does not—
—we thought that a Government which introduced the Competition Act did also, but we have a Minister who believes we should 'wait and see' what the effect will be 'after' the Zones have been started".
Let us look at the Liverpool enterprise zone. I spoke to the Merseyside county council, the Liverpool district council, and others involved in the Merseyside Speke enterprise zone. I was told that, in general terms, the enterprise zone seems to have had no impact on Liverpool. At a meeting of the AMA on 2 April, the Liverpool city council wrote a report which said:
There have been no lettings to report".
To give the Minister his due, the zone is a strange area. It should never have been declared in Speke. It is in the wrong place, because it is away from the problems of the inner city and the docklands. It is out near the airport. If it works at all, it will detract considerably from the work that is being done in partnership schemes and by the Merseyside development corporation.
As well as being in the wrong area, the make-up of the enterprise zone is strange. It consists of three main parcels of land in three different ownerships. First, there are the closed British Leyland factories—which, if the Government's policies had been different, might not have closed in the first place. Secondly, there are the closed Dunlop factories—which Dunlop, as a multinational company, took away so as to manufacture tyres in Europe as a result of the Common Market's proposals for free movement of capital. Thirdly, there is the airport land.
There is also the English Industrial Estates Corporation which was there before the enterprise zone was declared and is still there. It builds advance factories and tries to let them. Some of the advance factories have been let—some of them were let before the enterprise zone was declared—but many of them are still empty and unlet. Since the declaration of the enterprise zone, there has been a deafening silence. There have been a few rumours. There has been a rumour of a bid for the British Leyland plant, but that is merely a rumour. I hope that the Minister will confirm or deny it. Does he know what is happening to that plant? Part of the site of the Dunlop factory has been cleared, and other parts have been made available for the storage of containers—that is hardly likely to produce many jobs—used on the docks.

Mr. Cowans: My constituency suffers the same problems. What has exercised my mind, and will no doubt exercise that of my hon. Friend, is that outside an enterprise zone even empty buildings are rated, but, as I understand the arrangement, within an enterprise zone a saving in rates can be made by emptying the building and doing away with the jobs. Is that not counterproductive, or is it one way in which the Government help unemployment by increasing unemployment?

Mr. Roberts: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says. Although I have evidence of much inactivity in the Speke enterprise zone, I have no evidence of factories being emptied to avoid payment of rates because they are exempt from the empty property levy. That is something that I should investigate.
Some activities in the Speke enterprise zone do not need a planning application to the local planning authority, but some do. There has been only one planning applicaton to the local planning authority, and that was for shops on the frontage of the British Leyland plant.
The success of the Liverpool enterprise zone can be judged by the fact that a Mr. Jackson was appointed as the man in charge of the enterprise zone. I believe that he came from Littlewoods. He was straight out of the Heseltine task force, a Whiz kid, appointed to run the enterprise zone. My information is that Mr. Jackson is thoroughly disillusioned and has given up his job, because he has seen that the project has had no impact. It has been an absolute shambles and a waste of time. At least we have some palliatives, which appear to be doing something, in the Government's other initiatives.
The Government should withdraw the amendment and abandon the whole idea of enterprise zones before they waste more taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. It was an exercise that did not provide jobs, and it detracts from the work that other agencies are trying to do in the areas where they are situated in trying to create jobs and improve the environment.
5 pm
Britain and Merseyside should be one vast enterprise zone. Enterprise zones would not be needed if we had the right economic and industrial policies. Merseyside does not need an enterprise zone out at Speke. It needs action in the dock and inner city areas. There is need for more money to be given to the urban development corporation which should have a bigger area, especially in my constituency of Bootle, to look after. We want development area grants for dock and dock related activities now denied because those areas are not involved


in manufacturing. There is also need for the Stanley district plan area of Sefton, which has the same problems as the inner cities, to be brought within the inner city area partnership.
The whole attitude of Merseysiders to the enterprise zone, the garden festival and other palliatives of the Secretary of State that do not solve any problems is summarised in a poem sent to me by a constituent. My constituent writes:
'No crock of gold', the city's told,
But plants and shrubs and trees;
To help assuage the people's rage
And social conflict ease.
What shall we do with violets blue,
My dearest Heseltine?
Shall Merseyside regain her pride
With creeping columbine?
Love-in-a-mist from monetarist
Shall not relieve our pain,
Nor blaze of green espouse the scene
Of all your party's shame.
It's work we quest, not dogma dres't
To ambush and waylay;
With Antoinette—'twas cake they ate,
With you, 'tis blossoms gay!

Mr. Ted Graham: The Minister has been left in no doubt that among Opposition Members there are many caustic critics of the concept of the enterprise zone. I believe that the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who has the scars, are the only Conservative Members present who served on the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. I understand that the hon. Member for Hornchurch intends later in our proceedings to seek success where he has so far failed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and myself also served on that Bill.
As the Minister has pointed out, the issue before the House is not perhaps of massive importance, but the issue of enterprise zones is important. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity not only to answer some of the questions that have been asked but to expand upon the standing of enterprise zones in the armoury of weapons that the Government have fashioned to carry forward their brand of entrepreneurial philosophy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was right to point out that this Government's local government and local government finance legislation has been one of the saddest and shabbiest attempts to change the face of local government since the war and probably over an even longer period. My right hon. Friend referred to the shambles of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) may have served on the Committee which considered that Bill.

Mr. John Cartwright: No.

Mr. Graham: It is significant that the concept of the enterprise zone reached the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill only at the thirty-ninth Committee sitting. It was not contained in the Bill as drafted. This was not one of those Bills that was added to, chopped about or mucked about in the other place. The enterprise zone, when it saw the light of day, appeared as amendment No. 831 but amounted, in fact, to a schedule of six pages that covered six pages of Hansard. It was a massive injection into the Bill.
The Opposition had already taken the view that the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill was not merely one Bill but a number of Bills. There was sufficient material in the Bill relating to direct labour organisations to merit separate legislation. It also dealt with the whole concept of local government finance, particularly rates reform. That would also have merited a separate Bill. The Bill's provisions relating to planning legislation and the responsibilities to be allocated to districts and counties would also have merited separate legislation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had been in his place, he would have argued that the part of the Bill relating to urban development areas would have merited a separate measure. Another example was the section of the Bill that related to new towns.
Miscellaneous aspects of the Bill related to caravans, derelict land, allotments, allowances and the publication of information. In all, there was sufficient in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill to merit six or seven separate Bills. This was the state into which the Government's legislation and thinking on local government had stumbled in 1979 and 1980.
It was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who conceived the idea of the enterprise zone. The concept already existed in a number of countries. It is possible that the name of Professor Hall will be mentioned. The name was pleaded in aid by the Minister in Committee. There is, however, no doubt that the Government were seeking to find initiatives that might cost some money but also portray the Government as an enterprising, energising and galvanising Administration full of good intentions. Two years later, having heard the experiences related to the House by my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), the Opposition are entitled to examine what the amendment that we are asked to approve means.
There is no doubt that the enterprise zone concept was seen by some as providing opportunities to many people to build and to take on extra responsibilities. It emerges that activities have not moved from one part of the country to another but from one local area to another or even from one street to another. I hope that the Minister will respond sensibly to the difficulty revealed in the document to which reference has been made.
I remind the Minister that we are discussing the first report of the enterprise zone monitoring study. My hon. Friends the Members for Bootle and Blaydon rightly pointed out that if helpful experience is available they would like to be able to read it. I understand that copies are available but they cost more than £30. If the Minister wishes to educate hon. Members and the public, he should ensure that that document is available in the normal green form system. We should ensure that relevant experience is well known. If hon. Members are to carry out their duties efficiently and effectively with regard to enterprise zones, we must have the latest information.
Will the Minister spend a little more time than his colleague when he was recently invited to answer questions about rent levels and their relationship to rates in enterprise zones? No doubt the Minister will tell us that people were induced to take their business, money and skill to enterprise zones because it would be cheaper to operate there because of allowances, relief, speed with regard to planning, a reduction in bureaucracy and, above


all, because they would not have to pay rates. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) asked
how many enterprise zones have been designated; how many are operative; and how many representations he has received in respect of all zones, whether designated or operational, for firms located just outside zone borders about the difference in rate burden borne by them and by firms within the zones.

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that the Minister has received representations, both from me on behalf of most firms that are just outside enterprise zones and directly from GKN Galloway, T.I. Churchill Ltd. and the Federation brewery whose products occasion some delight among hon. Members. I know also that he has received representations through party political affiliations. GKN used to make a large contribution to Conservative Party funds. It has stopped doing so and has made strong representations.

Mr. Graham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister will not deny that he has received representations. It is a question of the weight that the Minister is prepared to attach to those representations and whether he is prepared to acknowledge the problem.
In his reply on 11 June to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, the Minister of State said:
An exact figure for the number of representations about the rates exemption cannot be given, but we are well aware of the concern which has been expressed, particularly by the public warehousing industry."—[Official Report, 11 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 165.]
I do not suggest that the Minister is unaware of the anxieties or that he suggested that problems would not arise when the matter went through Committee two years ago. Now that the Minister's foresight has been borne out and the problems are obvious to the affected firms, what does he intend to do?
Only last week the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said:
It is senseless that people should be encouraged to move out of one area into an enterprise zone thereby causing the loss of jobs in one area and the creation of jobs in another. Is that not silly?
The Under-Secretary replied:
That inference cannot yet be drawn."—[Official Report, 23 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 286.]
It may not be silly if the Government's economic management results in that type of circumstance but we are entitled to some explanations.

Mr. Cowans: The Under-Secretary said that that inference could not be drawn. It can, as there are two firms in my area that wish to expand. However, they have discovered that because of the enterprise zone, a national concern that trades in the same type of commodity has moved into that enterprise zone and looks set to cause the closure of existing local businesses because it enjoys the advantages of being in the enterprise zone. The Minister freely admitted that there were problems. Not only could he have accepted that the entire site should have its rates reduced; he could also have insisted that the rates of firms in the same line of business, whether inside or on the outskirts of an enterprise zone, should be reduced to equalise competition. I understood that to be his policy.

Mr. Graham: Although the matter has been expressed in a partisan way, the Minister should be aware that the

Opposition recognise that there are Labour-controlled authorities that, in their desperate search for jobs, have been willing to grasp at almost any straw. The enterprise zone concept appeared two years ago to give them an advantage. They wanted that advantage. It should be borne in mind that many zones have not been operating for two years—many have been in existence for only a matter of months. The Minister should say something helpful about the problem.
There remains the vexed question of the possibility of landlords and developers, recognising the attraction of enterprise zones because companies must pay no rates, increasing rent. For example, if the rent for a factory is £50,000 a year and the rates that must normally be paid are £20,000 a year, the combined cost to the entrepreneur is £70,000. Because rates are not paid the cost is only £50,000. It is only human nature that the landlord may ask for more—say £60,000 or £65,000—as that is still less than would otherwise be the case.
I hope that the Minister will say that there is no evidence—although I believe that there is—that taxpayers' money in the form of rate relief is being exploited in that way. The Under-Secretary said that £10 million was likely to be given to local authorities in England in compensation for gainsaid rates in 1982–83. I hope that that sum will encourage people to move into enterprise zones and that it will not merely be a hidden subsidy to developers or landlords who rake in money in the way that I have outlined.
The Minister may well say that evidence is being sought. I picked up in The Economist earlier this year a piece of evidence from the Trafford Park zone, showing that property values inside the zone had risen by 30 per cent. while those outside had fallen by 25 per cent. in the 12 months just ended. Perhaps it is facile to argue that property values are depressed outside and inflated inside the zone—and rents will reflect those values—because there are so many inducements, but we are certainly entitled to an answer from the Minister on that.
The Minister should also give us some idea of the job situation. To be fair to the Minister, in Standing Committee he told us what he hoped would happen and in the past two years a great deal has happened in the economy that he perhaps could not have anticipated. Nevertheless, he should tell us not only how many jobs it was hoped would be created but whether the jobs created by the factories that were opened were merely transfers from factories outside to factories inside an enterprise zone because it was cheaper to operate there. Secondly, how many firms went into the enterprise zones but have now either gone out of existence or moved out of the enterprise zones because they have not turned out to be so attractive as was hoped? In this short debate, the Minister has the opportunity to set our minds at rest on that.
I attended a conference recently at which representatives of the new towns of the North-East were greatly concerned that Government money was simply chasing itself all over the place. The public are investing money in new towns, in enterprise zones and in special development areas, all of which are advertising and trying to attract business to themselves. The new towns were seriously asking what was the point of the Government encouraging, for instance, an enterprise zone in Hartlepool with inducements to industrialists to go there when they would be tapping the same source of firms which might bring jobs to the new towns. I had not noticed my hon.
Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) sitting behind me, but I am delighted to see him as he has taken a keen interest in the concept of enterprise zones. Nevertheless, a dilemma that the history of enterprise zones has now revealed is that, however good may be the Government's intentions in trying to find an answer to some of the regional problems, other people within the regions, if they are not actually looking upon them with a jaundiced eye, are certainly wondering what is the point of one area benefiting if it is to the disbenefit of another.
As has been mentioned, the concept of enterprise zones comes from Hong Kong and the Far East. It was believed that if the climate in which successful enterprises had flourished in the Far East could be translated to some of our regions they, too, would succeed. That completely misses the point. Our argument is that if resources are available to sustain industry there is a massive job for the Government to do throughout the economy. That means not merely shifting a few hundred jobs around some part of the North-East, the North-West or Scotland, but an economic and employment initiative that will really solve the problems. We do not believe that the Government's efforts with enterprise zones are anything like what is required. We shall not oppose the amendment as it attempts to deal with an anomaly, but the Minister will have to give some very satisfactory answers to the other problems that have been exposed in the debate.

Mr. King: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply briefly to the points raised. I think that the House will have some sympathy with the last example chosen by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). He was no doubt quoting when he asked what was the point of helping Hartlepool, only to turn around and find his hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) sitting behind him, no doubt well able to deliver a short, sharp answer to that. I think that some of the points that I shall develop will make the situation clear.
The hon. Member for Edmonton is always extremely fair and it was honourable of him to accept partial responsibility for the need for the amendment. He acknowledged that he was a member of the Standing Committee on the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill and we all failed to spot a point that should have been covered and which could have been raised by any member of the Committee.

Mr. Graham: The Minister must recognise that the problem now is where the line was drawn on the map. The designations were not known to the Committee. If proper care had been taken with the precise designation of the area, the problem would have been foreseen.

Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman has answered his own point. In designating enterprise zones, lines must be drawn somewhere. That is inevitable. One then runs into the problems that we now see. Any hon. Member could have spotted the difficulty, but none of us did. I fully accept, of course, that the Government have the ultimate responsibility. We are now seeking to put this right and to overcome this small technical point.
I could take exception and say that this is a very narrow debate concerned merely with the straddling of boundaries, but if the House is to consider this narrow point properly, it is perfectly fair to ask certain questions

about enterprise zones. Therefore, so long as I do not stray outside your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to reply to some of the points that have been raised.
It was clear that the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) and Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) felt considerable hostility towards the enterprise zones and that they regret them. That is interesting. No doubt it would interest the workers of Scotswood at the new Vickers factory in Newcastle which I had the pleasure of visiting. That will now be the largest enclosed manufacturing construction in Europe. Vickers faced a very difficult situation at its old, awkward, rundown site at Elswick, and the whole future of the plant was very much in doubt. I have it on very good authority that the project might never have gone ahead and that it was the introduction of the enterprise zone as much as any other factor which resulted not in the loss of all those jobs but in their re-establishment in the most modem new facility which is the best hope for the future of those people. I am sure that those people, whether or not they are the hon. Gentleman's constituents, will note with interest his condemnation of the enterprise zone and the criticism and hostility that he has expressed.

Mr. Cowans: The Minister must not mislead the House and people outside, as he now seeks to do. As Hansard will show—if he had listened, he might not be making such statements now—I was pointing out the anomalies that had been created, and I asked three specific questions because the Minister now has the opportunity to clear up some of the anomalies. Of course I welcome Elswick, but the Minister must also remember another aspect.
This may be new knowledge to him. When Scotswood closed, Vickers intended to develop the Elswick site. Since the establishment of the enterprise zone, Vickers has moved back to Scotswood. I welcome that, but it leaves a vacant site inside the enterprise zone.
The Minister must not mislead the House. He knows that there are anomalies. He has an opportunity to put them right. No one suggests that the enterprise zones should be washed out, but the Minister must inform the House of exactly what is said, and not his interpretation of it.

Mr. King: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, but by the time he had finished with the anomalies one was left with the feeling that he has a strong distaste for the whole experiment. That was certainly my impression, and why I made my comments. If he is now saying that he supports the enterprise zones, I welcome that.
I agree that there are anomalies. I told the Committee on the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill that there would be difficulties. The country is in economic difficulty and, as a Minister, I am endeavouring to get things going. But, here we go again. We have the "do nothing" brigade who advocate doing nothing because to do something will mean problems, difficulties and anomalies. There always will be such problems, but for some that is a reason for doing nothing.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman supports regional policy. Regional policy in the North-East is based on the whole concept that there will be discrimination. Some areas will receive benefits and advantages. That is accepted. My constituency is next door to an assisted area. Ever since I came into the House I have lived with exactly those criticisms. Just over the boundary there are


advantages in benefits, investment grants and regional development grants, all enjoyed by companies. There was also the regional employment premium, although that has now gone. I have lost employment for my constituents because firms could go elsewhere and get greater benefits.
I have the problem of firms being set up in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, or close to it, in competition with firms in my constituency and enjoying regional development grants for the full capital investment of new plant. Those grants are not available to my constituents. That bias, if one can call it that, has always been built in to regional policy. With enterprise zones that same concept and approach is heightened because the areas are that much closer. The disparity is all the more visible.
Enterprise zones are an experiment to tackle some of the most deep-seated problems in the areas that need such zones. One need only look at some of the problems in the sites contained in the enterprise zones. I have had the pleasure of visiting Hartlepool, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool knows, and seeing the enterprise zone and the possibilities that exist there.
One of the most difficult tasks that I have had to undertake as a Minister is to traverse the Trafford Park enterprise zone in Manchester to find fair boundaries. It is arbitrary and difficult. We tried to find the fairest possible basis. I accept that the scheme is not perfect, but it is a determined attempt to achieve a fair balance in a difficult area.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My constituency is in exactly the same position as my right hon. Friend's. We have competition from new towns and areas receiving special grants, and so on. An enterprise zone is not too far away. I agree that the Government must have a range of options in seeking to help the worst areas. However, as unemployment has spread throughout the country there are some areas, and parts of some areas, where unemployment was low but is now increasing. In some of the good areas certain parts have an unemployment rate approaching 12 or 13 per cent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Department, and the Government as a whole, must now look at the rating system and the possibility of derating the parts of industry that even in the good areas may be feeling the draught? Should they receive a reduction in rates to help them to compete with the assisted areas?

Mr. King: If we take on the whole subject of industrial derating I am sure that we shall go sharply out of order.
The phrase "fair competition" has been used. I accept that it is not fair competition in the sense that regional policy has not been fair competition. There is a deliberate tilt. The view has been taken by Governments of both parties that there is a need deliberately to distort the basis to encourage particular areas.

Mr. McWilliam: Before the Minister dismisses that point so sharply, does he accept that, although there is an argument for a regional distortion in competition, there is no argument for two factories—GKN Galloway and George Johnstone—that are 500 yards apart and producing the same product when one enjoys the advantages of regional policy and the other does not? That has happened.

Mr. King: That is the point I have made. It has accentuated a state of affairs that exists under regional

policy. For example, there is a company in my constituency making central heating pumps. It is competing with a company making the same product—a foreign company at that—that has been set in a new town in the North East that received regional development aid. It would not matter whether those companies were 500 yards apart or 300 miles apart. That distortion of competition is keenly felt by the company in my constituency. It is unable to get the subsidy on its investment that is available to its competitor.
The hon. Member for Blaydon made a very serious allegation against the Library that has caused me some confusion. I understand that a copy of the report was deposited in the Library. The hon. Gentleman said that someone in the economic affairs section has a copy for which he paid. There appears to be something curious that must be investigated. This is the first time that I have heard that if a document is owned by the economic affairs unit in the Library it is not available to Members—that it is a private copy. However, I am assured that a copy of the report was deposited with the Library.
This is the first report. It does not deal with the progress of enterprise zones. It records what happened before the enterprise zones came into operation. The subsequent monitoring reports, the first of which will be produced in the autumn, will show what changes have occurred. The reports will not be limited to the enterprise zones. We are also looking at what is happening outside them. That is important. That is one of the obvious aspects to consider and it has not come as a blinding revelation. We want to know whether firms are moving in from elsewhere or whether new firms are being set up. A rough check has been kept for the Clydebank enterprise zone. It shows that half the firms are new firms.
We are in the early stages. I remind the House that the most recent enterprise zone to be set up is on the Isle of Dogs. That was opened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as recently as 21 May. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said that his constituency was close to an enterprise zone. The enterprise zone at Corby was one of the first to get under way and it has moved extremely fast. We do not have detailed monitored results at this stage, but we are trying to keep a rough idea of progress. The results vary in different parts of the country. Corby is probably in the lead at the moment, but there are encouraging signs of activity in a number of enterprise zones. The Isle of Dogs zone, being the most recent, has hardly got under way.
I understand that things are afoot with regard to the Leyland factory at Speke. It is possible that contracts will shortly be exchanged with the developer who proposes to split the factory into smaller units that can be brought back into more effective use.
Rents present a difficult problem. In a sense, one could say that that is sufficient objection not to do this at all. We cannot prevent some leakage or slippage of enhancing rents in such areas. A gentleman much involved in an enterprise zone told me that it was not a bad thing if some of the rents did rise, thereby encouraging more construction and activity by making these areas economically more viable. That is a slightly circular argument. The point is that there is a time pressure on developers and owners to get these enterprise zones into development. If they hike the prices too high and do not attract people to take advantage of these benefits, time will slip away. We must remember that this is a 10-year


exemption benefit. Therefore, the longer it takes to being these areas into development, the more people will lose some of the benefit that flows from them. That is the principle upon which the rate concession has been established.

Mr. Graham: The Minister referred to Corby. My information is that the rental values in the Corby zone have gone up from £1·80 to £2·20, an increase of about 25 per cent. I appreciate that the problem is complex. However, if we are trying to induce people to come into such zones and the total package of non-rates and grants equates with what exists outside the zones, what incentive is there if the rents eat up the benefit of not paying the rates?

Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understood the point that I made. Property owners in the enterprise zones have a diminishing asset. They must attract people fast, otherwise the assets steadily become worthless. Independent market forces will, therefore, drive people to let the properties and get them occupied, because that is where the benefit lies, otherwise they will lose the benefit of their rates exemption. That is a judgment that they will have to make.
In certain areas, the rents went up but have now come down simply because of the failure to attract tenants. It is for the developers to worry about whether they attract the tenants. If they do not, they will not get the rents and it is very much in their interests to do so.
It is still too early to give a clear picture about the enterprise zones, but there are some encouraging signs. My visit to the new Vickers factory was one of the most encouraging that I have made. Developments in respect of a number of enterprise zones hold real prospects.
The House will understand that this is an experiment that the Government believe was well worth trying. It is an alternative approach for precisely the reasons that I am sure the hon. Member for Hartlepool would have given had he intervened. New towns have enjoyed considerable benefits over the years. That has been a form of incentive attraction. Some of the old towns that want help to revive their inner city or derelict areas are entitled to these enterprise zones. The Government believe that this is a further sensible weapon in the armoury of assistance to help tackle some very difficult problems.
I have strayed wide of the amendment, but I hope that my comments have been of interest and I hope that the House will support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Minister has coaxed me to say a few words, but I shall not be critical of any attempt to attract employment to areas where work is badly needed. All Governments have suffered the dilemma of finding an adequate solution to this problem. It has been a very costly business ever since the war, beginning with the Hailsham report, to obtain work in the depressed areas.
I made a personal approach to the Prime Minister about private enterprise zones and received an immediate answer within 24 hours. It pleased the county council and the Hartlepool district council when an enterprise zone for that area was added to the list. I have also received co-operation from the Minister with regard to boundaries. Although I was not successful in persuading him of my case, I accepted the strength of his argument. The potent

factor was that this was a high-cost job provision. That must be borne in mind when we consider the armoury of aids to the regions.
I apologise for intervening, but I do so only because my constituency has been mentioned. There is understandable and reasoned anxiety about existing industries in the enterprise zone areas. I do not intend to name companies, because that is not the way that I wish to proceed. I deal merely with the principles and the general evidence and urge the Minister to give some indication, which he has more than partly given, that monitoring must accompany a new idea such as this.
My experience is that even in the short term there are fly-by-night developers, such as the high-risk entrepreneurs, who love to play with other people's money and who attempt to produce employment in constituencies such as mine where there is 25 per cent. male unemployment and 2,000 young people without a full-time job. To me, such people are more nauseating than muggers or drug pushers because they deliberately throw a spanner into the efforts and work of Ministers.
I know from experience that certain people have talked glibly of developments worth millions of pounds and that within months they have skived off and left a trail of company debris behind, not to mention £1½ million of unsecured loans. Small companies have been crippled by such action.
I know of a company that moved only eight or nine miles into an enterprise zone and told the workers "Unless you travel here, you are finished." That has been followed by a change in the rate for the job. As a result, low income workers with transport problems are in understandable difficulty.
An employer can move only a short distance and enjoy the benefits of the rent moratorium, the rate rebates and all the rest that goes with the frills of the enterprise zone initiative.
A company in my constituency closed with £1 million worth of engineering orders. A nationalised industry closed it, yet another company was given £¼ million of public money from British Steel Industries Ltd., from the National Westminster Bank, from the English Industrial Estates Corporation and the county authority. I shall not identify the company in the House, but I shall write to the Minister about it because what I have to say is serious. The company received more than £200,000 without any examination of the entrepreneur's previous background, or where he had been in the past five years.
The House might think that incredible, but it happened because I have had the officers of the lending bodies before me and they have had to admit it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman gave a list of names of the institutions which supported the company, including a bank and a county council. Is he saying that the representatives of the bank and the county council did not examine the facts, or were not able to ask the kind of questions that would give them an impression of the status of this man?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) should not be led astray. If we go down that road we shall be led far away from the Lords amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter: I say no more than I have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I shall be writing to the Minister.
I can confirm that there was no knowledge of the past professional background over a period of five years of the person who benefited. It is important to bear that in mind.
I say this with some feeling because in the House there are hon. Members on both sides who have spent much of their public lives trying to solve the problem of unemployment in depressed areas. The examples that I have given are but a few. They emphasise the need for the Government to say to those responsible for enterprise zones that it is now time to monitor and to set down guidelines. Existing industries must not be put at risk.
Companies should not be allowed to move short distances, discarding employees and taking on others at less cost because of the benefit of a new deal. Many of us are anxious to help the Government. Harsher criticisms could have been offered to the Minister on the subject on enterprise zones than those that I have offered.
However, we have the enterprise zones and it is our job to try to make them work. Therefore, the Minister will have the full support of hon. Members so that together we can make the enterprise zones more viable and less of a worry to other industries.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New Clause E

INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF BLOCK GRANT

Lords amendment: No. 13, insert the following new clause—

"E. — (1) The Secretary of State shall have power to require any information submitted to him by a local authority under section 65(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (information for purposes of block grant) to be certified under arrangements made by the Audit Commission established under Part III of this Act.

(2) The said section 65(1) shall have effect with the substitution for the words "the total expenditure to be incurred" of the words "the expenditure incurred or to be incurred" and as if section 4 above were included in the provisions there mentioned.

(3) Subsection (2) above has effect in relation to any year beginning on or after 1st April 1981."

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 32.

Mr. Roberts: Subsection (1) of the new clause is designed to allow the present arrangements for the certification of block grant claims to continue under the audit commission. In the past, as the House will know, administrative arrangements have been made for the district auditor to certify rate support grant claims. This has provided the necessary independent check on the figures and has ensured consistency between authorities in the calculation of grants. I think that we are all agreed that consistency is of great value in this context.
The same can be achieved in future by providing for the audit commission to make arrangements for the certification of claims. We actually envisaged the certification being done by whoever the commission has appointed to audit the local authority's main accounts. That seems sensible, and the House would certainly agree

that the Secretary of State should require a formal certificate for a claim for such significant amounts of central Government grant.
That takes care of subsection (1) of the new clause. Subsections (2) and (3) correct a deficiency in drafting of section 65(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which was taken directly from regulations made under the 1974 Act, and which was not wholly appropriate to block grant.
The opportunity has also been taken to extend the scope of section 65(1) to include the information required for the purposes of clause 4, which, if the Bill is passed, will be as much a part of the grant calculation as the sections of the 1980 Act referred to in section 65(1). In short, the amendment dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's" of a procedure that has already been accepted in substance. Therefore, I ask the House to agree to it.
Amendment No. 32 is consequential on amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which I hope that we shall discuss in a few moments.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales for his short explanation, but we ought to consider the importance of the amendment first in relation to amendment No. 32. The Under-Secretary of State said that the amendment is consequential. It may be consequential, but it severely alters the long title of the Bill in an important way. I stress that, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) earlier, when he was talking about the money resolution, because of the power of the House, and hon. Members who make up a Committee examining a Bill.
Were an amendment of this nature to be submitted by a member of the Committee, the Chairman, who would come under your authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Clerks advising him, would advise that that amendment was out of order. The amendment would not be selected, so it could not be considered.
In certain circumstances, and with difficulty, the Government can introduce an amendment to alter the long title of the Bill, but it is done with great forethought. If one is alerted by an amendment to the long title of the Bill a row takes place about why it should be done and why the Government had not had the foresight to present the Bill properly in the first place with the proper title.
However, in the other place, the Government seem to have complete immunity to introduce almost anything into a Bill and, in a cavalier fashion, amend the long title of a Bill subsequently. The amendment is drastic. According to the original long title, the intention of the Bill is
to amend the provisions relating to adjustments of the distribution of block grant".
That is one thing, but as amended that will read
to amend the provisions relating to block grant.
That is wide and sweeping. It is necessary for the Government to amend the long title to achieve their objective. The amendment goes futher than the Under-Secretary described.
Amendment No. 13 states that the provision shall have effect
in relation to any year beginning on or after 1st April 1981.
That gives powers to the audit commission, which is not yet in existence, to make arrangements for the presentation of information to the Government in respect of last year's


block grant. Why is that necessary? An error or lack of foresight cannot be the answer because of the words in new clause E(2). The Bill uses the words
the total expenditure to be incurred".
That is understandable because the information relates to that year and the block grant can be determined for that year. The amendment substitutes the words
the expenditure incurred or to be incurred".
That takes into account what happened in 1981 before the audit commission operated.
The Under-Secretary said that the information was supplied by the district auditor. That may be true, but the suspicion is that local authorities do not submit the correct information to the Minister. I hope that the Minister will deny that vociferously, but there is scintilla of a suspicion.
6 pm
The audit commission is a contentious body. Even though it has been watered down from its original concept, local authorities are suspicious that the commission could turn out to be "Her Majesty's Inspectors' Department for the Scourging of Local Authorities". Both Labour and Conservative authorities fear that. Why does the audit commission have to interfere with information supplied to the Department of the Environment in relation to last year's block grant? Why does the whole of section 65 of the old Act have to be amended to take care of that? Why is it necessary for the long title of the Bill to be amended in an underhand fashion in another place?

Mr. McWilliam: My right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) caught me out when he triggered my mind to an aspect that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales did not mention. We shall not vote against Lords amendment No. 13, but if the Government were serious in their intention to reduce public expenditure they would not press the amendment. I do not believe that Ministers have understood the financial consequences of the amendment. We are talking not about the local government audit service, but expensive private auditors, whose time costs a great deal.

Mr. Christopher Price: They are probably members of the Tory Party.

Mr. McWilliam: They probably are members of the Tory Party, and perhaps not too worried about expenditure. A total audit and valuation has to be made for an effective certification of claims for block grant. Some auditors work on a £50 per day basis, at least, so it will cost a great deal of money.
I invite the Minister to explain where the money will come from. Will it be reckonable for rate support grant purposes so that only half comes from the ratepayers, or will it all come from the ratepayers? Let us be clear. We are talking of unnecessary expenditure, which the Government intend to ram down the throats of hard-pressed ratepayers. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the amendment.
I accept that the wording in the 1980 Act is deficient, but I do not accept that the Minister has any right to introduce the provision before 1 April 1983. We are now well into the financial year beginning 1 April 1982. I dislike retrospective legislation, whether it is to clear up yet another blunder by the Government or whether it has more sinister purposes. I believe that the amendment is intended to clear up another blunder.
I urge the Minister to reconsider Lords amendment No. 13. It will cost a lot of money. It will lead to claims taking

longer. Perhaps that is why he agrees with the amendment. Perhaps he does not want block grant claims to be submitted on a timeless basis. Perhaps he wants another half-year system. If claims do not reach his Department in time, local authorities will not receive the money. How can the Government ensure that the proposal will not interfere with claims being submitted timelessly?
I have read Lords amendment No. 32 carefully and I approve of it. I give it my unqualified support. It states:
leave out 'adjustments of the distribution of".
That relates to block grant. Clause 4 says:
In subsection (6) of section 59 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (purposes for which the amount of block grant payable to a local authority may be adjusted under that section) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted" the guidance and so on.
Neither on Second Reading nor in Committee have we made any secret of our abhorrence of everything that is in clause 4, which includes powers to adjust the distribution of block grant. I welcome amendment No. 32 wholeheartedly because if it is carried I shall raise a point of order asking that clause 4 be ruled out of order since its import will not be contained within the long title of the Bill. The amendment is entirely different from amendments No. 13 and 32 on which the Government had to resort to the subterfuge of introducing a second money resolution. The amendment changes the long title of the Bill in such a way as to eliminate the disgusting effects of clause 4 and the attempts to impose holdback.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept that amendment No. 13 is unnecessary and will cost a lot of money and that amendment No. 32 is the best thing that could have happened. I hope that he rejects everything that he said about clause 4 and withdraws it before the Chair has to rule it out of order.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: These fairly simple amendments have aroused unexpected and surprising debate. I shall deal with the points as they were made. The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) made a great deal of amendment No. 32—the amendment to the long title—which is designed to cover amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam put his finger on the reason why subsection (3) of the new clause goes back to 1 April 1981. The reason has nothing to do with the audit commission. There is a drafting error in the 1980 Act in section 65(1), which is about the provision of information and it is because of the drafting error that we must have this change.
Amendment No. 13 affects subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause, and the change that we are envisaging will enable not just total spending, but current expenditure or any other item of expenditure to be considered. It was suggested that we might be casting aspersions on the reliability of the information provided by the local authorities. I assure the right hon. Member for Widnes that there is no suggestion that authorities might deliberately mislead the Department. Audit certification is necessary to ensure that all claims are consistent. I have already emphasised the need for consistency and I stress too the need for continuity.
6.15 pm
The hon. Member for Blaydon referred to the cost of audits. My noble Friend Lord Bellwin said in another place that the total cost is less than £100,000. Considering the number of authorities involved, that is not too large a sum.
I do not agree that the amendment will place further significant demands on local authorities. There are wide powers in section 65(1) of the 1980 Act to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to obtain information for block grant purposes. The Lords amendment would oblige local authorities to furnish expenditure statistics so that holdback can be calculated accurately. It was always envisaged that the conclusive calculation of block grant would be based on outturn figures and these will also be used for holdback.
Since the clause will be as much a part of the grant calculation as are the sections of the 1980 Act referred to in section 65(1), it is only right that subsection (1) should be tidied up as the amendment proposes.
I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Blaydon that the cost of certifying grant claims will be relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes.

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful for that assurance, but will the Under-Secretary tell us a little more about Lord Bellwin's estimate of £100,000? There are more than 400 local authorities and £100,000 would not pay for much auditors' time. I estimate that it works out at about half a day's work by a partly qualified assistant for each local authority, which would be less than adequate in the light of the duty that the House is about to place on the audit commission.

Mr. Roberts: My noble Friend Lord Bellwin said that at present the audit of rate support grant claims costs less than £100,000 for the whole country and that he did not expect that the cost would be significantly, if at all, greater in future. I cannot add to that or provide details of the auditors' time involved.
Block grant certification payments will be made by local authorities. Clause 22 makes it clear that the audit commission must undertake grant certification work if required by a local authority and that it is to charge the authority concerned. That seems reasonable since certification is a service to the body that receives the grant.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 32 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New Clause F

BLOCK GRANT FOR RECEIVER FOR THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT

Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 4, after the words last inserted, insert the following new Clause F—

"F.—(1) Schedule (Block grant: Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District) to this Act shall have effect for enabling block grant to be paid to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

(2) This section has effect for any year beginning on or after 1st April 1983."

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 29.

Mr. King: The amendments and the schedule which accompanies them deal with a point that was raised originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and to which we responded as positively as we could. We said at that time that we would see whether

it was possible to work along these lines. Subsequently, we had the unanimous approach of the London Boroughs Association. Indeed, an amendment was tabled in the other place on behalf of the London Boroughs Association and was also supported by representatives of the Association of District Councils. It is a sensible provision to ensure that rating authorities in the Metropolitan Police district do not suffer unexpected losses or gains as a result of the changes in the Metropolitan Police's expenditure over which they might have no control. The London Boroughs Association has pressed the provision strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch left us in no doubt about where he stood on the matter and urged this course on us. After due consideration we thought it was the right course to take. I apologise to the House if the amendments are somewhat lengthy but the principle is simple. It enables block grant to be paid direct to the receiver.

Mr. Cartwright: I should like to welcome the amendments because, as the Minister said, they tidy up an anomaly. They are sensible amendments. I am one of the few hon. Members taking part in our discussions today who was not on the Standing Committee of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. Therefore, I do not know why section 64 and schedule 11 of that Bill proposed to pay Metropolitan Police block grant to the rating authorities. It was not a good idea. It breaches the basic principle that block grant should be paid to the authorities providing the service. It undermines the accountability of the local authorities concerned because they are receiving funds for services that they are not providing. More importantly, it undermines the accountability of the Metropolitan Police. I am always arguing that we should be increasing the financial accountability of the Metropolitan Police. I have always been unhappy that the receiver of the Metropolitan Police can precept on the authorities in the Metropolitan Police district who must pay over the money that he requires. That has always seemed to me to be taxation without representation.
Apart from the problem of accountability, there are serious accounting problems to which the Minister referred. Local authorities in the Metropolitan Police district have to make some estimate in their budgets of the amount of block grant that the Metropolitan Police will receive. It is a difficult operation given the current ways in which block grant is calculated. It depends now to some extent on the decisions of the Secretary of State. It depends to some extent on the authority's own spending and on the spending of other authorities. Therefore, the calculation will be changing throughout the period of the grant year. It cannot be definite until the grant year is completed.
If a local authority takes a pessimistic view about the level of block grant it will levy a higher rate than it should in order to protect itself against unexpected demands. That would harm the ratepayers and would be against the policy of rating as tightly as possible, for which the Government argue. If an authority takes an optimistic view it runs the risk of having to cover an underestimate from its reserves. If those reserves are not sufficient, the authority will now have to go to the Secretary of State and ask for borrowing powers. In other words, it will be placing itself in jeopardy as a result of factors that are outside its control.
As the Minister said, the London Boroughs Association has pressed amendment No. 14 for some time. I am glad to hear that the Government are accepting the amendments


because they tidy up sensibly an anomaly which should never have existed, and remove practical problems. I welcome the amendments.

Mr. Robin Squire: I introduced the amendment in Committee and I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on the action they have taken. I do not intend to make a long contribution. The reasoning behind the amendment was given in Committee and has been reiterated today by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). I should like to use a football vernacular which I have used in the context of more than one amendment on this subject in the past two or three years. I feel like the man who thinks he has scored a goal, has been ruled offside and then had the decision changed by a friendly Russian referee who has allowed the goal to stand after due discussion and the odd protest. I welcome that goal warmly.
All the local authorities in the greater Metropolitan area will appreciate the amendment. It will simplify what is still a complicated procedure, but to the extent that it makes it marginally less complicated we should welcome it and I am sure that they will.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not pretend to understand the depths of complication that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) explained so carefully in Committee, but, like everyone else, I welcome the amendment.
The problem of the accountability of the Metropolitan Police has been raised in a small way in our debates on the Bill. Earlier speeches have referred to the complications and to the guessing game that individual local authorities now have to play to try to find out what the eventual grant will be. But the guessing game has coincided with much wider arguments about how one achieves accountability for a large amount of money from an organisation that is provided with money through the rates, and that so far has been wholly unaccountable except in the sense that from time to time we can ask the Home Secretary questions about it in the House.
The London borough of Lewisham, part of which I represent, did a great service to the public 18 months ago by threatening—it did not carry out the threat—that it would not pay its precept to the Metropolitan Police under certain circumstances unless it, Lewisham, achieved a great deal more accountability than it had until then. For Lewisham, that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
In 1978, because of the sheer obstinacy of the Commissioner, Sir David McNee, we were subjected to a great deal of physical damage and harassment as a result of a National Front march. The march could have been avoided if the Metropolitan Police had been more accountable and had advised the Home Secretary that the march should be called off, as the Home Secretary has been advised in similar circumstances ever since. The people of London saw what happened in Lewisham in 1978, and finally the Metropolitan Police came to their senses and realised that on balance National Front marches had to be banned. The amendments have come to us because the Government have been introducing more and more centralised and complicated ways of paying rate support grant.
Every time they make a change they find that they have made a mistake and so they have to introduce an amendment in Committee. Every time they do that they

find that they have made another mistake and so they have to introduce an amendment on Report, and so the process continues until we are called upon to consider Lords amendments. We should not imagine that we are at the end of the road and that the Government now have it right. Our experience since the 1980 Act is that the Department of the Environment's legislation throws up more anomalies than it solves, and so it will be with the Metropolitan Police.
6.30 pm
The Government have acceded to a reasonable request from the London Boroughs Association, which was supported moderately and eloquently by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). The Government have responded by producing this "solution". If the Government are to pay the block grant direct to the Metropolitan Police, that is even more reason for saying that that has not satisfied financial accountability. I suppose that the audit commission might be able to investigate whether the Metropolitan Police needs all the riot shields that it has and then to make a judgment on whether it is getting value for money from the riot shields, fire hoses and water cannon that it buys. The audit commission might have a right to do that but it must go beyond that.
The House must establish a system under which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the receiver of the Metropolitan Police must come before democratic representatives, whether that is under the aegis of the GLC, as some of my colleagues on that body want, through the London Boroughs Association, or through the procedures of the Public Accounts Committee in the House. Under such a system they should be called on to provide far more answers than they are willing now to give. I am talking about the money that has been spent, and especially the policies that underpin their demands for money to be made available.
Financial accountability on its own is meaningless. There is no point in asking "How have you spent the money?" The tone of the Bill is that it is silly to put in auditors merely to ascertain whether there is a receipt for a cheque that has been paid out. The thrust of the Government's policies within the Bill is what the Government call value for money. We are talking about value for money audits.
We have seen how local authorities are to be subjected to value for money audits. How does the Minister propose that the Metropolitan Police is to be subjected to a value-for-money audit under the new block grant direct payment arrangement which is laid in the amendment? If the Minister proposes to change the system, he should not present the amendment to the House by saying "This is a small amendment that was agreed to in another place to help this body". He should explain what impact the new audit commission will have, with its private auditors—Mr. Ian Hay-Davidson, Mr. Arthur Anderson and other great and wonderful individuals who will be brought from the Conservative Party and other parties, but substantially from the Conservative Party—in providing value for money for the great public services of Britain. How does the Minister propose that the Metropolitan Police will be subject to value-for-money auditing?
When a service such as the Metropolitan Police is comparatively well funded compared with education or housing, and when the money is flowing fairly easily because the Government have decided to make a priority


of the police, there is a great danger that the money will start to be wasted. For example, there may be a desperate attempt to spend everything by 1 April to ensure that funding will continue at the same level. The police are comparatively well funded and they should be under stronger rather than weaker scrutiny exactly for that reason.
The Minister has explained the effect of the Lords amendments and we all welcome them, but I want to know rather more. For example, I want to know whether the Minister is willing to apply to the Metropolitan Police the stringent value-for-money audit that he says he wants to apply to so-called overspending local authorities such as the Greater London Council and the London borough of Lewisham. Will it be one law for the Metropolitan Police and another for Labour local authorities? That is the question that I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer. The Metropolitan Police is just as capable of overspending as local authorities.

Mr. Graham: The amendment is good sense and long overdue. There may have been some unease about the manner in which the Metropolitan Police received its money partly by direct grant and partly by means of a precept. The amendment comes before us because of the unhappy experience of local government over the past two years, which has been the direct result of the Government's financial policies and methods aggravating a difficult situation. No more money will find its way to the Metropolitan Police than that which it already receives. However, the money will be funded to it more directly. It should be possible to be much more precise about who is responsible for the various elements within the total bill. Nothing is more irritating to a local council than to be responsible for what it has spent and to be answerable for what it has not spent.
Every hon. Member who has participated in the debate has had only good things to say about the police generally but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, the raison d'etre of the Bill is not merely value for money but accountability. The Minister must explain to the House the system that he will operate to ensure that every penny that is provided from the public purse, centrally or locally, is accountable. The amendment is necessary because of the uncertainty and instability that have faced local government over the past two years.
The amendment will mean additional work for the Government and additional bureaucracy, but it would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have responded to the pressures from the LBA and all the metropolitan authorities. I understand that there has been some opposition from one or two authorities that are covered only indirectly by the London boroughs. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. Those people have been trying to act on behalf of their ratepayers and they must feel aggrieved, or perhaps they misunderstand what is happening. However, the Opposition appreciate and welcome the Lords amendment.

Mr. King: I shall pick up the final point that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) made about one or two authorities that were concerned about the changes. One example has been drawn to my attention recently, which involved presentation. The previous presentation

was not the most helpful. The Metropolitan Police grant was debited against the borough rate and the gross amount of Metropolitan Police expenditure was shown separately. The effect is that the same net result is produced, but it is misleading. That is not the best way to act. The authority was concerned about the changes involved, but, with that one exception, the change has universal support.
I now turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). The background to the system that we are changing is that previously things were done in the way in which they had always been done. As we are a Government who never make a change for the sake of making a change and who are always anxious to move with the grain in society, we left the arrangement as it was. It is now clear, on a logical analysis, that that was not the most sensible way to act. Therefore, after we had listened carefully to the arguments we were persuaded that the changes should be made.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) took me a little wider than the issue of the payment of block grant direct to the Metropolitan Police. I noted his words carefully when he said "We cannot leave it there." I thought that he never did. The hon. Gentleman then gave a short dissertation on the subject of the accountability of the Metropolitan Police. He asked whether there was to be one law for the Metropolitan Police in terms of value-for-money auditing and another for local authorities. The answer is "No."
The Metropolitan Police will be the subject of proper value-for-money examination auditing, not under the audit commission. The list of bodies that will be covered by the audit commission includes combined police authorities but the Metropolitan Police, with the police authority being the Home Secretary, must come under the Comptroller and Auditor General, and are subject to his rigorous value-for-money studies. There are certainly no tighter regimes.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 29 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 5

ESTABLISHMENT OF AUDIT COMMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 5, line 15, after "shall" insert ", after the like consultation,"

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Amendment No. 15 provides that the Secretary of State must consult the organisation specified in clause 5(2)—the local authority associations, the accountancy and the employees bodies—not only about the membership of the commission but about the chairmanship and the deputy chairmanship.
The chairman and deputy chairman must be members of the commission. I have no doubt that there would be consultation with those bodies anyway before the appointments were made. These are extremely important posts. We accept that it should be made clear in the legislation that appropriate consultation must take place before the chairman and his deputy are appointed. Therefore, we were happy to respond to Opposition pressure in the other place for an amendment to this effect to clause 5.

Mr. Graham: The Minister fairly said that the Government had responded to pressure from the


Opposition in another place. That opposition was exactly the same as the opposition expressed to the Minister and his colleagues in the House. There is no difference. Opposition Members had a constant battle about consultation. There was not much of a concrete response in Committee. However, the Government said that they were willing to consider the matter. Somehow, the Minister was unable to concede to Opposition Members in Committee that the force of the arguments that we deployed merited some concessions.

Mr. King: We always need a little time to think about that.

Mr. Graham: If what we have tonight is the product of a little time, I hope that it gets a lot of time in the future.

Mr. Christopher Price: I, too, welcome the sinners back from repentance. I am pleased that they have come round to consulting the bodies that are laid down in the clause about the chairman, deputy chairman and other members of the commission. I still think that the proof of this stodgy pudding will be in the eating.
I notice that the words "Conservative Party" do not appear among the bodies that are to be consulted before the chairman of the audit commission is appointed.—[Interruption.] I shall not table an amendment, but if the Minister tabled a manuscript amendment to insert the words "Conservative Party" that might accord more with reality.
It is right that the Government have tabled the amendment. Who eventually becomes the chairman and deputy chairman of the audit commission will decide whether it is a credible body. It is extremely important that the Government get this matter right and do not go in for a "jobs for the boys" policy, as they recently did over health authorities. If the health authorities are any guide to the mood that the Conservative Party is in for quango appointments, it augurs badly for the audit commission.
I hope that the Government take great care, not only with the chairman and deputy chairman, but with all the other members of the commission, to keep at arm's length from their mates in the private accountancy firms. I hope that they try to arrive at some names for chairman and deputy chairman that command general assent across the House and throughout the whole of local government. What the Government have recently done in the Health Service has been extremely damaging in its impact on people's ability to run that service.
I have put down that marker with no real confidence that it will be adhered to. I hope that the Government will take it on board. To that extent, the amendment is welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 20

STUDIES FOR IMPROVING ECONOMY ETC. IN LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 16, line 25, after "services" insert
and of other services provided by bodies whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act,

Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 17, 20, 21 and 24.

Mr. King: The amendment will ensure that clause 20, which refers only to "local authorities", encompasses all the other bodies listed in the original clause 6 which, although not encompassed by the term "local authorities", come within the ambit of the audit commission. They include port health authorities, combined police authorities, fire authorities, internal drainage boards and so on. The amendment is self-explanatory.

Mr. Mc William: Amendment No. 24 appears innocuous. The words to be left out include:
section 20 above shall apply in relation to Passenger Transport Executives and the London Transport Executive".
Clause 20 is titled:
Studies for improving economy etc. in local authority services".
If the Minister is arguing that studies should be undertaken of passenger transport executives, the audit commission is the wrong body to do so. It does not have the necessary expertise.
In Committee we objected to the wholesale introduction of studies, and the matter will come up again later. It appears that the Minister has overstepped the mark. A more appropriate body should look at the efficiency of transport undertakings. I need hardly remind the Minister of the problems that already exist in some of the undertakings. I should hate to think that a body composed largely of accountants appointed by the Minister and his hon. Friends would be asked to attempt to make a helpful study to produce the desired effect. I invite the Minister to reconsider this.

Mr. King: There is nothing sinister about the omission of lines 40 to 44 on page 18. They become redundant because of the other amendments. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) widened the issue to cover the question of the inclusion of clause 24. It is appropriate for the audit commission to cover passenger transport executives. There is no change in our attitude.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 17, 20, 21 and 24 agreed to.

Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Brooke.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we were to take the two orders together.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have tabled an amendment to the Secretary of State's proposed motion. May I ask your guidance on whether the amendment is to be called or whether it is in order to discuss it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I apologise. I should have told the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the hon. Member's amendment; he may refer to the general matter but not speak to the amendment.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not generally known to be awkward on such an occasion, but the intention was that I should deal with the first order and my deputy would deal with the second. I should prefer to proceed that way. We are debating a change of policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can take the two orders together only if the House unanimously agrees, and it seems that is not so.

Mr. Prior: I believe that progress on the political front has an important contribution to make in diminishing the tensions in Northern Ireland on which the terrorists feed. They do not want greater stability and will try to obstruct progress towards it. We must maintain our relentless pressure on their criminal activities. It is in that spirit that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act has to be renewed, and I invite the House to do so now.
I start by expressing the House's and country's gratitude to, and praise for, the courageous men and women under the command of the Chief Constable and the GOC. I record our sincere sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who have died in the performance of their duty. I have in mind not only the Regular Army, the UDR and the RUC but the RUC Reserve. All of them face exceptional hazards in the course of their duties, and perhaps even more so while off duty. We appreciate and respect the courage and devotion to duty shown by them all and by their families. In the past few weeks when our minds and attention have been elsewhere, and where there has equally been a tragic loss of life, it may have been too easy to forget the number of men and women who have laid down their lives in the service of freedom in Northern Ireland.
The task of the Armed Forces—in support of the civil power—is to defend the people against the cowardly attacks of terrorists. They need special qualities of discipline and self-control in the painstaking task of supporting the police in applying the ordinary law of the land. The aim of our security policy is simply and easily stated. It is to eliminate terrorism and extend normal policing throughout Northern Ireland. That means

arresting offenders, bringing cogent evidence to the courts, and winning convictions in open court. That is a policeman's job.
The primary role in security policy in Northern Ireland must be for the RUC, and it is well manned and equipped to undertake it. The past 10 years have seen a steady development in its professionalism and expertise in response to the burdens that have been placed upon it. It is not a matter of numbers alone—although its strength has increased from 4,115 in 1972 to 7,511 today. This development reflects the quality of the men it is recruiting—for it is a young force—and the quality of the leadership at the top, currently in the capable hands of Sir John Hermon.
From all that I have seen, I believe that the quality of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is as high as that of any police force in the British Isles, and that some of the young men going into it are of exceptional quality.
On my arrival in Northern Ireland, I was enormously impressed and reassured by the daily evidence of the close teamwork between the Chief Constable and General Sir Richard Lawson, the GOC. That continues under General Lawson's successor, and there is a profound confidence between the RUC and the Army in Northern Ireland, carrying out their complementary tasks, aimed at achieving security for the people of the Province. I should like to pay a special tribute to the work of General Sir Richard Lawson, who was a fine general and did a remarkably good job in Northern Ireland.
The security we all seek in Northern Ireland is the freedom to go about our daily lives in peace, free from the threat of violent attack. That requires us to maintain and strengthen confidence throughout the whole community in the ability of the police and the courts to act impartially and fairly to enforce the law and administer justice. No one recognises more clearly than the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding that they must not only enforce the law but be seen to uphold it.
The police and the Army in Northern Ireland are frequently asked to make agonising decisions—sometimes life or death decisions—in difficult and dangerous situations. They have to do so in the knowledge that not only will they be answerable to the law for those decisions, but that an error of judgment or a rash decision on their part may exacerbate community tensions and generate support for the advocates of extremism and violence.
I can understand the frustration that leads to pressures for superficially quick and easy solutions, but we cannot flout the law we are trying to uphold. We should not ignore the results which the security forces are achieving.
During 1981, 557 people were convicted of scheduled offences on indictment and 90 of them received sentences of 10 years' imprisonment or more. Up to 14 June this year, charges had been laid in respect of 384 serious terrrorist offences, 31 of which were for murder and 54 for attempted murder. That record has been matched by a slight abatement in the level of violence and fits a long-term trend that is broadly positive. But I must remind the House that 1981 was a year in which society in the Province came close to the brink. Despite all the provocations and anguish of that year, the vast majority of both sides of the community demonstrated once again their rejection of violence.
In the period up to the end of May this year there were 168 shooting incidents in the Province and 106 bomb explosions. The weight of explosives used so far this year


has been 5,834 lbs. Fourteen members of the security forces and 22 civilians have been killed this year, compared with 17 members of the security forces and 32 civilians in the last six months of 1981. Physical injuries during the first five months of this year have numbered 246, compared with 624 in the period from July to December last year. Large quantities of ammunition and detonators have again been found and 176 firearms have been recovered. All this reminds us—if we needed reminding—not to relax our vigilance or in any way to become complacent about the security situation. I point with caution to some improvements, but that is a dreadful toll. I know that hon. Members—particularly those with Northern Ireland seats—will be emphasing that when they speak in the debate. We need to maintain the utmost pressure on the terrorists. There can be no question, in present circumstances, of doing away with essential emergency provisions, and I ask the House to renew them, but it is right that we should look at such exceptional powers with the greatest care.
I emphasise again that the success of our security policy depends upon commanding the support of the community. The present provisions—although we have been able to drop the provision for detention—have been in force now for many years. In 1975, Lord Gardiner conducted a review of the Act as it was then, and the resulting arrangements are now incorporated in the present Act, but I believe that our debates on renewal of the Act should be informed by a further independent review.
As I have explained, I do not think that the situation in Northern Ireland is such that any hon. Member could argue that emergency provisions are no longer required. But there should be a review that will enable this House to take a balanced judgment on whether each provision of the Act is still strictly necessary and whether any provisions need specific amendments. In any event, it is right for the House, in dealing with Acts of this nature, to have reviews from time to time. These are serious matters and it is in the interests of those of us who believe that the Act is absolutely essential that we should still carry the conviction of the House and of the country by being prepared to submit the Act to periodic reviews.
At this point it would be appropriate if I mentioned the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and his hon. Friends. I shall make known to this House the terms of reference of the review and its composition in due course. Given the nature of the subject, I intend that a senior legal figure should take a leading part in it, but I am not in a position to discuss particular names this evening. That may go some way to meet the hon. Gentlemen, but it would be unrealistic to adopt their timetable of six months.
The review of the Emergency Provisions Act must be related to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and to the conclusions that will result from Lord Jellicoe's review of the latter Act. The purpose of the review that I shall set up will be to check that the additional powers given to the security forces in Northern Ireland to protect persons and property against terrorists are still serving their purpose effectively, but with the minimum impact on the ordinary civil liberties of the subject. There will be no unnecessary delay in the conduct of either review, but the process cannot be hurried unreasonably.
I understand that Lord Jellicoe is unlikely to be able to report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before the end of this year, and I would expect those reviewing

the Emergency Provisions Act to find that some aspects of their work really cannot be brought to a conclusion before the outcome of Lord Jellicoe's review is known, because the relationship between some parts of the two Acts and the way they are used by the security forces in Northern Ireland means that they must be considered together.
I realise that hon. Gentlemen are asking for the review of the Emergency Provisions Act to be completed before its next renewal date in December. I am afraid that there are cogent practical reasons why that cannot be done.
I have been extremely impressed by the thoroughness with which Lord Jellicoe is undertaking his task. He has been in Northern Ireland for three days this week, or during the course of the weekend, apart from his previous visit, and I believe that he is going back again.
For the present, I must say frankly that the security situation does not permit me to recommend that any elements of the Emergency Provisions Act should be allowed to lapse—and when we are renewing the Act, the question of amendment cannot arise. I hope that the House welcomes my intention to arrange a thorough and independent review of the Act's effectiveness. We all look forward to the day when such provisions are not required, but that day is not yet.
I know that a number of matters will be raised during the debate, because there are various conflicting points of view in the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State say when he thinks his review will commence?

Mr. Prior: I do not want to be specific, but I imagine that it will commence some time in the early autumn. That would enable the review to be well under way by the time Lord Jellicoe is in a position to report, and the findings of that report could be taken into account before the final decisions are taken on the review that I have announced. So I expect to set up the review in September or October.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: If the Secretary of State cannot give us details of the remit and terms of reference at this stage, and will report to us later, according to what he said earlier, will he tell us now, in general terms, whether the way in which Lord Jellicoe is conducting his review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act will be emulated in this further review? He is receiving evidence and making inquiries from a variety of sources, not simply the authorities in Northern Ireland or here. Will the review of the emergency provisions legislation follow similar lines?

Mr. Prior: I cannot commit anyone who is undertaking a review, but I hope that the person whom we are likely to appoint—I have no idea yet who it will be—will carry out a very full review. We have nothing to hide. I want a proper review. Therefore, I shall expect the person to carry it out in exactly the same way as Lord Jellicoe set about his task. Anything less than that would not he worthwhile.

Mr. Stallard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Did I understand him to say that he would not recommend any changes in the Act as a result of the review?

Mr. Prior: I said that I could not recommend any changes tonight. It would be entirely a matter for the House of Commons and the Government to consider, once the review has taken place and once we know what the


review contains. All I am saying now is that at this stage the Act should be renewed. In my opinion, that is essential. There are different views in the House of Commons, and I try to meet those views, because I recognise the anxiety, on perfectly reasonable and libertarian grounds, that the House should not go on passing legislation year after year without reviews to see whether the powers are absolutely necessary. The defeat of terrorism is of the utmost importance, and we need the powers if we are to make the maximum effort. Nothing can be done at this stage, other than the review that I have promised, to change in any way the effectiveness of the Act.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and I am entirely satisfied with the review that is to be set up and its time scale. However, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is likely that the terms of reference will be similar to those of the Gardiner review in 1975?

Mr. Prior: I have come to no firm decisions about the terms of reference, but I have no reason to believe that they would be different from those for Lord Gardiner. However, I should like to consider the matter, and perhaps my hon. Friend will say a word on that subject when he replies to the debate.
In conclusion, I know that there are different views in the House about the way in which the Act is operated and about some of the activities that we consider are necessary if we are to defeat the activities of terrorists and to keep order and discipline in Northern Ireland. I have complete confidence in the police and the security forces. I talk to them constantly. I try to put a political impact into their activities, and accept their professionalism in carrying out their duties. I am always willing to report to the House on the occasions when a problem arouses anxiety in the House. For the moment I have announced the review, and I have told the House when I think that it will take place. It is on that basis that I invite the House to renew the Act's provisions and those in the interim period extension order.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: May I say, first, that the House now regards—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but some hon. Members were not present when I announced that the two orders were being taken separately.

Mr. Concannon: I think that the House now realises the wisdom of my request that we should take the two orders separately. I understood from the answer to my written question of 26 May that the Secretary of State would set up an independent review of the operations of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Basically, I wanted two separate debates, so that the House could apply its mind to the emergency provisions, and then debate the other order later.
I agree with the Secretary of State's praise of the security forces and many other people in Northern Ireland, including those who go about their everyday business, for their efforts to keep the Province in as good order as possible. I agree, too, with what he said about the achievements of all the security forces and not just of the

Armed Forces in their efforts in that country. This worried me somewhat in the context of what has happened in the Falkland Islands. I do not want what I say to be taken as a slight on the troops or anything that happened in the Falkland Islands. Our forces did exceptionally well when they were called upon to go into action. It is, however, my hope that our forces involved in the long grind in Northern Ireland will not be forgotten. I should like to think that the expressions sent to our forces in the South Atlantic apply equally to those serving in Northern Ireland.
This is the fifth time that the Opposition have asked for a review of the workings of the Act. This is Labour Party policy. I shall, however, resist the natural temptation to make that request again now. We consider the Government's decision to be wise and a victory for common sense. It is common sense in terms of justice and is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I should like to thank the Secretary of State for responding to the propositions that we have put to him in previous debates. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will be able to say something about the remit. I should be happy if it was basically the same as that which led to the Gardiner report. If that happened, the problems mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) would disappear.
I would expect the review to be conducted with the same thoroughness as that in which Lord Jellicoe is involved. I would not like matters to be rushed. As one of the recipients of the Gardiner report, I know how long it took and how thorough it was. I know that we as Ministers looked forward to it to help us to sort out what had become obnoxious or no longer relevant. I hope that this review will be equally useful in respect of law that has been on the statute book for nearly a decade.
I accept the Secretary of State's point that legislation such as this should perhaps undergo periodic review. Hon. Members review these matters every six months when they have to be renewed, but there is need for wider experience and expertise to be applied to this task. We have long had reason to believe that the emergency powers of arrest, interrogation and trial encompassed in the Diplock process are a continuing source of grievance and friction. These powers suspend the normal course of common law for those accused or suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. They impinge on fundamental civil liberties and on the legal rights of many not involved in terrorist activities. Where such unusual and overbearing powers are adopted by the State, it should always be the duty of the State, through the Government, to justify the continuation of such powers and processes. We see the review announced by the Secretary of State in that light. It is overdue but still welcome.
The Opposition have put the case for an inquiry over the past two years only to be told by successive Ministers that the six-monthly renewal debate in Parliament, coupled with the Government's monitoring of the situation, is adequate for review purposes. We have often argued that such a state of affairs is not enough. The emergency provisions legislation is complex and extraordinary. To be properly justified in renewing it twice a year we need thorough information to ensure that the powers that it contains are being used for the purposes intended by Parliament. We also need to know whether all the powers are still necessary to cope with changed


circumstances. If a certain power is no longer necessary, it should be done away with immediately and we should revert to normal common law processes.
Lord Gardiner's report said about the temporary nature of the Emergency Provisions Act:
Emergency powers should be limited in both scope and duration".
Later, in paragraph 21, the report says of such powers:
Though there are times when they are necessary for the preservation of human life, they can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community, and they do not provide lasting solutions.
The Opposition hope that the forthcoming inquiry will adopt its brief in the spirit of the Gardiner report. My copy of the Labour Party policy document is becoming quite battered—[Interruption.]—but only through use. I am gradually reading its contents into Hansard. On page 12, the document says:
Our aim is to achieve a reasonable balance between the maintenance of law and order and the protection of civil rights. There is, in our view, a strong case for fundamental review of the operation of the Act with a view to changing some of its operations and to provide for its ultimate replacement. We therefore recommend that the next Labour Government carries out such a review and legislates accordingly.
On page 30, the document states:
We recommend that the review of the Act be given high priority.
In the short time that has to elapse before the Labour Party takes office a thorough review will be taking place for which we can thank a change of mind by the Secretary of State.
It is not for the Opposition to tell the inquiry how to conduct its review of the Act. There are, however, areas of concern that we believe should be examined in detail. They have already been referred to by Opposition Members, by the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and by the National Council for Civil Liberties. It would be most helpful to have an independent assessment of the need for section 11 of the Act which enables the police to arrest anyone whom they suspect of being a terrorist.
It would appear that there is no need for the police actually to suspect a person of involvement in an offence in order to make a valid arrest under section 11. An arrest can be made simply as a first step in the investigation into whether an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism. We need to know how essential is this power of arrest in present circumstances and also how many arrests made under section 11 could be made under common law powers. We need to guard against extraordinary powers being used as though they had become normal police work.
Another area where we would value independent adjudication concerns the powers of detection and interrogation accorded to the police under this Act. It would be helpful to know whether the power to detain suspects for three days is essential and whether the same number of confessions and convictions would not be forthcoming if the detention period before charging was shortened. The rule on admissibility of confessions under this legislation has given rise to much controversy. It is an area that should concern all hon. Members. We must always endeavour to ensure that no confession is given out of fear of prejudice or as a result of some hope of advantage held out by a person in authority.
Section 8(2) may not fully protect the accused. There is a strong case, acknowledged in the House in previous

debates, for the wording of this section to be tightened. Many would argue that the major feature of the Emergency Provisions Act is that it permits one-judge, no-jury courts to deal with terrorist offences. On this matter, paragraph 26 of the Gardiner report reads:
We believe that trial by jury is the best form of trial for serious cases, and that it should be restored in Northern Ireland as soon as this becomes possible.
The report concluded that no change should be made in this area but the time might now be ripe to have a panel of lay assessors or a group of three judges sitting together.
It is now eight years since we had a thorough independent assessment of the relative necessity for no-jury courts. Undoubtedly the situation has changed in that time. The House may wish to consider amending such an exceptional and draconian judicial method. Labour's policy document says on page 21 about the Diplock courts that
we do not see any prospect of a return to ordinary trial by jury, so long as paramilitary and terrorist activity continues on the present scale, and witnesses and jury members are subject to intimidation and violence.
I should like to stress the frequency of intimidation and violence for the benefit of those who are not familiar with it. During the debate on the Emergency Provisions Act on 2 July 1981 I quoted paragraph 27 of the Gardiner report. It said:
we were given details of 482 instances between 1st January 1972 and 31st August 1974 in which civilian witnesses to murder and other terrorist offences were either too afraid to make any statement at all, or, having made a statement implicating an individual, were so afraid that they refused in any circumstances to give evidence in court. It is reasonable to assume that juries would be equally open to intimidation.
Perhaps the Secretary of State could update that information. Is intimidation still that rife? Judging by recent events, it is. Nevertheless, it would be worth the Minister stating the figures again. The period covered by the Gardiner report was only nine months, yet there were 482 instances of intimidation, threats and coercion that stopped witnesses going to court.
One way to return to jury trial would be to deschedule some offences that are now referred to Diplock courts. One yardstick that has been suggested is that of the five-year sentence. I shall look forward to the review making some recommendations on that matter. It is hard to imagine that all the present scheduled offences are committed with the aims of terrorism in mind. That may have been the case when the provisions were first placed on the statute book, but it is hard to believe that now.
We must guard against extraordinary judicial processes being applied to those who are accused of committing crimes that have no terrorist or political motive. We should take care not to include what we used to call the ODC—the ordinary decent criminal. We used that phrase to separate such people from terrorists. When such people are regularly charged under emergency provision, those provisions become sucked into the system. That is a dangerous path to tread.
The Opposition hope that those matters will be considered by the review. Expert though Parliament may claim to be on many subjects, there are times when we should take note of an independent assessment of how legislation operates on a day-to-day basis. The last Labour Administration were grateful for the Gardiner report and we acted upon much of it, especially with regard to


emergency legislation. It would be no bad thing if emergency legislation that affected both the mainland and Northern Ireland were reviewed regularly.
The Opposition have spent much time and energy during the past two years persuading the Government to set up the inquiry. We make no complaint about that. Such is the role of an Opposition. As the apparent need for this legislation extends beyond the first decade, there is a need for it to be reviewed more regularly. We welcome the Government's decision to set up the inquiry. We sincerely hope that the House will know its findings as soon as is practicable. I should not like to specify a time; I want the review to be thorough.
Although the Opposition will not divide the House on the present extension, when the next review arrives we shall require an updating of the review and of its character. If we wish to add to the review, I hope that as individuals and as the Labour Party we and other organisations will explore the matter, as is now being done under the Jellicoe review. I hope that the review will guide the House and that the Government will explain their reasons for accepting or rejecting it. I am aware of the difficulties involved, but I hope that we shall have a good debate and come to a conclusion.
The Opposition will not divide the House on the order. My party's policy is that, unfortunate though the emergency provisions are, they are still necessary. We are thankful that the Secretary of State has seen fit to afford us the review. We look forward to dealing with it as soon as possible.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who always speaks on matters of security with knowledge, wisdom and patriotism. We are all glad to hear from him that the Opposition will not divide the House on the motion. There should be the utmost national unity when we are dealing with a national emergency.
This is a melancholy occasion. These debates come round year after year. The emergency that requires the powers has lasted longer than both world wars put together. Perhaps I may link the present debate with a previous one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the introduction of a political impact to the security effort. It has been the conviction of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that half the battle against terrorism will have been won when the Union has been placed beyond doubt and the terrorists know that success cannot be achieved because the will of the people of Northern Ireland will be honoured and maintained.
I deplore the necessity for the powers. I fully agree with the right hon. Member for Mansfield and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we should be jealous of entrusting the Executive with such powers. That is why I welcome the review. We must not take it for granted that the powers must remain in their present form all the time. We must ensure that they are not kept for a minute longer than is necessary, but who can doubt that without the powers few terrorists would be convicted?
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is in use on both sides of the water, is also important. Those measures contain powers that we reluctantly give to the Government. They are hateful powers, but they are

necessary and the infringement of the liberties of some is sometimes the price that must be paid for the lives of many.
In one of yesterday's debates, I alluded to border security in county Fermanagh and county Armagh. We shall not hear anything about the security of county Fermanagh from the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron).
That constituency is virtually disenfranchised. Its Member of Parliament makes speeches extolling the armed struggle of the Republican movement. I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), will seek to catch the eye of the Chair as in him all the people of that constituency, Protestant and Catholic, have a champion and one who shares their dangers. I recall, sometimes with a shudder, the calm manner in which he put me into his motor car one sunny Sunday afternoon and said "We are going to Crossmaglen", and we did.
I referred yesterday to some disturbing reports about the border, particularly in Fermanagh and Armagh, and I quoted my noble Friend Lord Brookeborough. I drew attention to the removal of Gardai manning the border posts and their transfer to Dublin to combat the wave of violent crime that afflicts that city and the robberies and assaults that are unfortunately commonplace in the capital of the Republic.
I also quoted my favourite Ulster newspaper, the Impartial Reporter &amp; Farmers' Journal, which circulates on both sides of the border. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) does not approve of it, but it gives a very fair crack of the whip to all opinions and all sections of the community. In its leading article on 24 June, it said:
It is clear for anyone who crosses the border from Fermanagh to see that the permanent army Gardai posts have been removed completely. However, at other checkpoints they have been maintained.
As we do not receive any reports from the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who represents that area, I have tried to inform myself about the situation. I gather that it is not now so bad as was portrayed in that editorial and that either there was no movement of police to the extent that was reported or there has been a return of Gardai to the border areas facing county Fermanagh and county Armagh. That is a relief, because it was disturbing to hear of any lessening of co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana, as one of the cheering aspects of this gloomy situation has been the excellent relations between them. That, of course, is much to the credit of Sir John Hermon to whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid tribute, but also to the Commissioner in Dublin.
We do not have extradition. We have only a second-best extradition through the criminal justice legislation passed by this Parliament and the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act passed by the other Parliament. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the working of that legislation as I understand that there is some slightly more cheering news in that regard. There is also a very important case before the courts in the Republic which may have a helpful bearing on the working of that legislation—in the absence of the extradition that we should have if only the Republic were governed by men who had, perhaps, the strength to implement the international obligations of their country.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) said yesterday:
We tend to refer only to the Provisional IRA. We forget that there are paramilitary groups on both sides. They are both responsible for a terrifying number of deaths and acts of destruction. To fail to notice that is to demonstrate unacceptable partisanship."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 758–9.]
I was rather surprised by those words as it has not been my impression that Unionists, and certainly not Conservatives and Unionists in this Parliament, have been slow to condemn the vile deeds of those who do them under the cloak of the Union Flag. There has been no disposition to refrain from condemning such people. I remember my own words at the time of the murder of the show band people from south of the border. In so many cases, Unionists in the Province have denounced the foul deeds of paramilitary organisations which claim and disgrace the name of loyalism.
As the Catholic grandson of a Presbyterian in the constituency now represented by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I venture to quote a few words from a resolution passed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland a few days ago:
Those who take the law into their own hands, whether in a self-chosen campaign of terrorism by the Provisional IRA and other illegal organisations or in self-appointed counter-terrorist organisations like the Third Force, with its death threats against those who attack members of the Protestant community, however justified the frustration and dissatisfaction with the Government's policy of dealing with the IRA, or in so-called punishment shootings of any kind, are public enemies without regard to civil or human rights, to be repudiated and brought to justice by all who seek the peace of this Province, nation and land".
I hope that the House will forgive my quoting those words, but what I wanted to say has been put so much better in that resolution of the Presbyterian General Assembly.
The Presbyterian General Assembly also paid tribute to the RUC, as we would all wish to do, congratulating it on attaining its diamond jubilee and expressing appreciation of
all that it had done to promote better community relations and to protect all, irrespective of creed or party, who are threatened by terrorist attack".
The resolution commends the RUC for
the strength and courage shown in the face of vilification, provocation and violence to which they have so often been subjected".
That comes from a Church not many of whose members, I believe, support the Republican cause, whatever the Presbyterians may have done at the end of the eighteenth century. I only wish that words like that could also come, perhaps, from the Social Democratic and Labour Party.
When we pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary we should add our thanks to the other branches of the security forces—the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment—whose members have suffered so cruelly over recent months. They have been picked off in their homes and at their places of work. We mourn those who have died in the South Atlantic and we think of the bereaved and those who have suffered. But in sheer numbers that is almost nothing compared with the toll taken, not in defence of a distant British territory, but of part of our homeland across that narrow strip of sea.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I have been a Member of the House for eight and a half years. In

common with many hon. Members present tonight I have regularly participated in this renewal ritual. From time to time I have tried to inject life into the debate by displaying the emotions and the anger that daily I live with. It has been suggested that if I endeavoured to stay cool that would shatter some people. However, I doubt whether it is possible for me to stay cool in view of the security situation in Northern Ireland, let alone in my constituency.
I hope that those who question the need for this legislation will remember the statistics. In six months there have been 168 shootings, 106 explosions using over 5,000 lbs. of explosive, and 36 people have been murdered. That is equivalent to 1,500 being murdered in Great Britain during the first six months of this year.
I was in the House when, as a result of about 24 people being killed, legislation was put through within 24 hours. That legislation put to shame some of the other legislation on Northern Ireland at that time. I hope that hon. Members who question the need for this legislation will remember that. Those same hon. Members might also suggest other means of doing what the Secretary of State stated was his intention—to guarantee people the right to freedom and life as they go about their daily business.
I make no apology for the emotion and anger that I have expressed in our debates. I want to put flesh and blood on the statistics because it is important that hon. Members should understand what we in the Province have experienced.
It has been a good six months in County Armagh. Only four of my constituents have been murdered. I shall tell the House something about them. The first was a young man called Seamus Morgan. He was from Dungannon and the Roman Catholic father of four children. The IRA dumped him outside Fork Hill. They interrogated him, decided that he was an informer and punished him accordingly. He left a widow and four young children.
The second was a young man in his twenties from Bessbrook. His wife and young child accompanied him to work and as he said goodbye outside a public building in Newry a terrorist drew up on a motorbike, stepped off the motorbike, and blew the young man's brains out. He left a widow and young child, both of whom had witnessed the murder of their loved one.
The third person to be murdered was William Morrison, an innocent, 40-year-old single farmer who lived with his mother who was over 80 years old. In the early hours of the morning he had gone to fetch some milk to make breakfast for his aged mother and himself. He had never been a member of the security forces. He was gunned down with the two pails of milk in his hands. He was confronted by three freedom fighters armed with Armalite rifles. They put several bullets into him and then walked up to where he lay and finished him off. And so it goes on. Those are just three of the incidents.
Let me say something of the ragged flesh and the shattered bones. In the first six months of this year two of my constituents were left without both their legs, the last only a matter of days ago. I give these examples to the House because it is important that everyone here should bear in mind what I must bear in mind. If I ever become complacent about those statistics, or stop feeling angry or sad when I have to visit houses to say things that will console people who are inconsolable, I shall be accepting a level of violence that no other hon. Member would accept in his constituency. If that day comes, it will be time for me to quit.
There is a tendency for hon. Members to express horror at individual incidents or at various terrorist attacks, and then shut their minds until the next one comes along. There is a danger there for me as well. If I am preoccupied with this subject, I apologise—if that is necessary—but it is essential that I remain preoccupied and bring these matters to the attention of the House.
Unemployment, inflation, poverty and all the problems of the farming community are important issues in Northern Ireland, just as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom, but there is nothing more important than the right to life. All other issues pale into insignificance if when we go to bed at night we do not know whether we shall have another day in front of us.
The Secretary of State will remember that I brought a delegation to see him a few days ago. The members were not specially chosen. There were four men. Two of them had recently lost a brother and a third had lost his brother-in-law. They were typical members of other delegations that have come from my constituency to meet other Secretaries of State. I am now informed that some of the neighbours of those men have been warned that they are next. When I receive a message like that, what can I say? I have to tell them that there is nothing that I can do. I cannot arrange for them to have individual protection. The Government cannot do that. The members of this small community in my constituency have all the experience in the world to prove that more of their neighbours will die within the next few months.
What is the crime that these men have committed? The community has never been guilty of retaliation, and I shall give proof of that later in my speech. The community poses no threat to anyone. Its offence is that it gives its allegiance to the British Crown and that it holds a part of the frontier against a Republican enemy. That is a good enough reason for its members to be killed.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is not in the Chamber at the moment. On the last occasion that we debated these matters he said:
I feel an increasing resentment that the English people and English Members should be involved in an internecine tribal war."—[Official Report, 15 December, 1981; Vol. 14, c. 273.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has learnt something since he began attending the debates. He was at our debate last night and here when this debate began. His statement was one of the most gross misrepresentations that I have ever heard. It displayed an appalling ignorance that I hope he is now in a position to correct.
I do not seek to convince anyone that there is no terrorism from the so-called Loyalist side of the community. I join with the hon. Member for Antrim, North, (Rev. Ian Paisley) in damning the so-called Loyalist organisation in its latest exploit of blowing up the wall of a Roman Catholic chapel. If that is all it can offer to Northern Ireland, heaven help us all. I accept that between 1972 and 1976 when law and order virtually broke down in the Province there was terrorism from the Loyalist community on a scale that almost matched Republican terrorism.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that during the past five years the level of terrorism from that side of the community has been minimal. It is certainly in single percentage figures. I wish that it were nil. Not only do I brand

the people concerned for the obscenity of their acts, but, in purely political terms, they give the enemies of Northern Ireland many excuses to talk about tit-for-tat in the Province. It also allows people such as the hon. Member for Cambridge, who claims to have some knowledge of the Province, to make comments such as the one to which I have already referred.
As part of the preparation of a case to the European Court of Human Rights, research was carried out for me along the border area for which I have some responsibility. It was carried out by academics and people who can substantiate their work. It showed that between 1978 and mid–1981, 69 murders were committed in the South Armagh-South Tyrone-Fermanagh area. Of the total, 51 were Protestant and 18 Roman Catholic. The most important statistic was that 67 of those 69 people were killed by the IRA. The other two were terrorists who had been apprehended in the commission of their crime.
The people about whom I am talking have not retaliated in the face of that assault or posed a threat. Their only offence is that they give their allegiance to the Crown and to this House.
What are we offered? We are offered the Northern Ireland Bill. The Secretary of State hopes that it will diminish tension. I am glad that he did not suggest that it would end terrorism or be able to cope with the terrorist campaign. I also hope that it will diminish tension, although I have certain reservations about that.
I suppose that the Bill is regarded as part of the campaign to win the confidence of the Roman Catholic community so that it will reject the men of violence. I have never believed that the whole Roman Catholic community supports the men of violence, and I believe that the people whom we are seeking to win over have already been won over. I believe, however, that there remain a substantial number of people within the 500,000-strong Roman Catholic community who offer active support to terrorists. We shall never win their hearts and minds.
The only thing of which I can be certain is that, if I am lucky enough to be here in six months time, I shall be giving the House yet another catalogue of death and violence. I do not need to guess at that fact, because that was said a few days ago by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron). At the annual Provisional Republican ceremonies commemorating Wolfe Tone at Bodenstown, County Kildare, the hon. Gentleman said:
Our message to you is that the armed struggle of the Irish people…will continue…we shall resist to the death should it take another 25 years … The Republican movement, therefore, wishes to affirm that the armed struggle will continue because it is central to the success of the whole campaign of resistance … The IRA's military struggle was 'the only guarantee of success and it will demonstrate that there will be no compromise over our declared demands'.
A man elected to this House is saying to the murderers of Seamus Morgan, Willie Morrison and all the others "Go out and murder some more. It does not matter whether they are Catholic or Protestant. If they get in your way or if they obstruct your ultimate objective, destroy them by whatever means you can".
I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the necessity for this legislation. He does not need to convince me of that, but it is not enough to say that at present there is no possibility of amending the orders. I told the right


hon. Gentleman six months ago that he was offering us no hope. What he said tonight offers no further hope. All I know is that this year and next I shall attend more funerals.
Let me repeat some of the suggestions that I have made in the past. I am not demanding the death penalty, although I read with interest what a senior police officer on the mainland said about politicians who voted against it but were were guarded by people who were told to shoot their assailants dead if they came anywhere within range.
What other society in Western Europe would allow a man to incite people to murder or allow a so-called political organisation, such as political Sinn Fein, to give a legitimacy to murder and murderers or to operate ticker tapes and other machinery to propagate an apology for the killers? Provisional Sinn Fein should have no resting place either in Northern Ireland or the Republic. If the Secretary of State does not want to ban provisional Sinn Fein, it should be harried and hounded from pillar to post, because there is every justification for giving that organisation no resting place.
Serious consideration should also be given to the whole issue of 50 per cent. remission. Some people may remember the killing of my constituent Margaret Hearst because the the bullet went through a Kermit frog toy that was carried by a baby beside her. She was murdered less than five years ago, yet the people involved in her murder watched her father's coffin carried down the road to be buried alongside her. The people who murdered his daughter were released in time to see that man, who was murdered by their associates, carried to his grave. That is the price of 50 per cent. remission.
If there is contrition, as there would be in most other parole systems, people should be given remission, but the 50 per cent. remission is automatic. Sentences of eight, 10, 12 or 20 years are given, yet only three, four, five, six or eight years are served. Remission should be on offer only if some contrition and regret is shown by people for the offences for which they have been found guilty.
The right to silence is taken for granted on the mainland. I am sure that mainland Members of Parliament would fight to defend the right of silence. However, given what we have heard tonight, surely people should be expected to account for their movements if they are apprehended at the scene of a murder or brought in for questioning on suspicion of being involved in the commission of a terrorist offence. What is wrong with expecting a man to clear himself if he is not guilty? Why should a person escape the rigours of the law simply by folding his arms, staring at the wall, and refusing to answer reasonable questions?
One person described to me the tactics that the terrorists use, which I shall not go into now, to avoid answering legitimate questions. Why should a person, after 12 years of the horror that I have described, refuse to clear himself of complicity, and why do we allow him to run free if he refuses to do so? I hope that this issue, which has been raised by other people, will also be considered.
Internment is not the dirty word in my mouth that it is in other people's. If by interning someone a person's life is saved, then selective internment should be introduced. Internment is not exclusive to Northern Ireland. It is used in other societies where the normal rule of law cannot cope. For two months I have had it preached to me that Northern Ireland is different. One cannot be selective in making Northern Ireland different. If it is different to

justify taking certain actions, then the fact that Northern Ireland is different in this respect makes it necessary to justify different actions in these circumstances.
Those are my suggestions. I have made them in the past and I am sure that they will be ignored as they have been before. I ask for my constituents that of which the Secretary of State spoke—freedom to go about their daily lives in peace, free from violent attack. One day, sooner or later, the House will have to come to terms with that. It cannot expect the people of Northern Ireland to go on enduring, year in year out, 100 or 200 people killed. It cannot say to us that one of these days it will all come right. There is no compromise with these terrorists. They cannot be placated.
I said on a previous occasion that some of the terrorists are so steeped in blood that they have probably forgotten their political objectives. They do not share the political objectives of any legitimate political party in Northern Ireland, even those who would be on their side of the fence, and I do not mean that in an offensive way. Neither do they share the political objectives of any political party in Southern Ireland. They cannot be placated. They must be defeated.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). I am pleased that he did not take the advice given by the unnamed person who suggested that he should stay cool and take everybody by surprise, because his comments, based as they are on the reality of someone who is close to terrorism and its effects, are required in the House to shake people out of their complacency. That complacency exists in this place, and it shields us from all the horror and the terror that is Northern Ireland under IRA terrorism.
The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself for having to take part in this ritual once more. The very fact that we need a continuance order is an indictment of the Government and their failure to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. When there was a conflict in the South Atlantic, the Government rightly and properly acted with resolution, firmness and courage. However, when there is a conflict in Northern Ireland, which has existed for 12 or 13 years, all that we have had has been dithering from the Government and ineffective and compromising responses.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to the debate of 2 July 1981, when he quoted from his own words on that occasion. I feel that it is perhaps more appropriate to quote the words of someone else who was here then but who is no longer here because the IRA terminated his life. On that occasion the Rev. Robert Bradford, the former Member for Belfast, South, when referring to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Order, said:
Now is not the time to reduce the powers or measures in that Act. It is not the time to dilute the effect of the measures. It is a time to increase the powers available to the courts and to safeguard law-abiding society from IRA … There is a need for the ultimate deterrent against murderers and bombers, and that is capital punishment."—[Official Report, 2 July 1981; Vol. 7, c. 1056–7.]
Sadly he will no longer take part in debates such as this. The ritual of these debates is over for him because of the failure of the Government to take effective measures against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
A former Minister, getting on to a plane to leave Northern Ireland in an inebriated state, is said to have determined that there would continue to be an acceptable level of violence in Northern Ireland. That seems to be the British Government's policy up to now.
In the South Atlantic the Government realised that they could deal effectively with the conflict by using strong and carefully planned measures. In Northern Ireland their policy is different. They want a levelling of the violence. They want to contain it at a level acceptable to the people over here, because people here are not affected by it in the way that the people in Northern Ireland are affected.
It is often said in Northern Ireland that the Government do not take the measures that they and we know are necessary to annihilate the terrorists because that might have its effect on this part of the United Kingdom. The Government are happy to allow the terrorism to continue at a certain level in Northern Ireland so that it does not boil over in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There is no question about the continuance order being necessary. It is more necessary today than in 1978 when the Act was passed. The Provisional IRA is the main cause of violence in Northern Ireland, although there are elements of terrorism from other parts of society that I and other hon. Members condemn and have condemned. The Provisional IRA is engaged in the most violent activity in Northern Ireland.
Those with access to intelligence from the Provisional IRA say that the IRA's personnel is larger now than ever. It sucked from the veins of the hunger strikers as much as it could. One does not get to leave the IRA once one has joined. One leaves only with kneecaps blown out or a hood over the head. All the recruits during the hunger strike period have added to the ranks.
We have gone almost the full circle in Northern Ireland. The hard-line bitter Republicans committed to prison in the late 1960s or early 1970s are coming back on to the streets. Such people reinforce the Provisional IRA ranks. The godfathers of terrorism, who keep their hands clean in law, have never been caught. The ranks are as strong as, if not stronger than, ever. The order is necessary because the IRA's manpower is greater than ever.
With some colleagues I have visited the United States of America. Other hon. Members have done that in different capacities. I am aware of the Noraid organisation, which funds the Provisional IRA to a significant extent. Not only does it send finance, but it is prepared to send weapons. When we see the weapons that did not complete their journey to Northern Ireland we wonder how many got through without the CIA, FBI or other United States organisations stopping them.
With the extortion rackets in Northern Ireland, the voluntary collections in the United States and bank robberies in Northern Ireland, the IRA's funds can always be levelled or topped up as necessary. Today the Provisional IRA is in a stronger position in regard to both manpower and financing than when the Act was introduced. Therefore, the continuance order is necessary.
There is also the problem of the Provisional IRA's weaponry. The security forces have been shot at by the most sophisticated weapons and people have been blown up by explosives emanating from Communist countries. All the weaponry and explosives that the IRA requires are available to it. Russian rocket launchers, Kalashnikov

rifles and the Armalite rifle that seems to be the favourite of the IRA have all been found in its possession. The Provisional IRA has its stores well placed and it has easy access from the Republic.
The cellular structure that the Provisional IRA operated was seriously damaged by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Shortly afterwards, Gerry Adams was sent to Dublin to reorganise the Provisional IRA and Seamus Twomey was brought in from the cold. Disagreements about such ideology as that organisation could ever pretend to have were patched up. Since Gerry Adams began reorganising the Provisional IRA, his position has weakened and the authority of Seamus Twomey has increased. That development might account for the resurgence of the Provisional IRA's use of car bombs in attacks in Belfast.
A new structure has been established by the Northern Ireland Provisional IRA. All the intelligence that the police gained about the old cellular structure is of little value and intelligence must be gathered again. Thus the Provisional IRA is reorganised, re-equipped and financed and it has the manpower to do the job. It also has its training camps in the Republic and, Colonel Gaddafi permitting, as he usually does, doubtless it has camps elsewhere. Compared with 1978, when the Act was put on the statute book, the Provisional IRA is at least as capable, if not more so, of carrying death and destruction to the people of Northern Ireland. Figures that the Secretary of State provided illustrate that point.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, as the Secretary of State said, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is better equipped and has more full-time officers and more full-time and part-time reservists than ever before? It is very well equipped to meet the IRA threat.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What about arms from the United States?

Mr. Robinson: The Minister is right in saying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is better equipped, but unfortunately it is not always given the full weaponry that it requires because of the United States' ban on providing certain weapons which we discussed in the United States.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the hon. Gentleman enlarge on a report that on a recent occasion, when there was the possibility of riots, the RUC was told "Just use two blanks and do nothing else"?

Mr. Robinson: That is a very serious matter. I also remember an occasion when there was rioting in West Belfast and the RUC ran out of baton rounds. Breakdowns in the system can occur. I accept that the RUC is well equipped. The argument of Unionist politicians has never been about the capability of the RUC to do the job, but about the directives to those in the RUC who are responsible for carrying out that job.
When the Minister talks about the RUC, the UDR and others he should also look to the protection of the men who are doing that job. Too often, police reservists and UDR men tell me that, even though their lives have been threatened, their application for a personal weapon has been turned down by the authorities.
A member of the UDR was twice followed to work. He notified the police that he was being followed by someone whom he believed was a member of the Provisional IRA.
The police followed the man who was tailing my constituent and established that there was a threat, but when my constituent requested a personal firearm his request was refused and his commanding officer handed him a piece of paper that I have with me. It reads:
From the commanding officer. Personal security. Are you keen to stay alive? If so read on! The Enemy. Provisional IRA and INLA are looking for targets. They are on the hunt. They have been amazed at how insecure many of you are. So what are you doing about this problem?
The paper helpfully lists a number of actions that ought to be taken to improve personal security and ends:
Keeping a dog with a bark.
That advice was given to a man who had been followed by the Provisional IRA. He was a target and had asked for a gun to defend himself. He was advised to get a dog that barked. How ridiculous can you get!
The Government should be prepared to give security to those who are putting their lives on the line while defending us. It is amazing how many people who are pillars of society and are in danger of being attacked have had applications for personal weapons turned down by the authorities.
The Provisional IRA is as strong as ever and there is no reason why the Act should not be continued. However, the Act will do nothing to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. If it were going to do anything, it would have done so in the many years that it has been in operation. It must be accompanied by a strong and resolute military initiative.
I hesitate to stand on the corns of those who believe that a political initiative will solve all Northern Ireland's problems, but history argues against them. We have had political initiatives which should have been to the liking of any Republicans, because they gave them more than any democratic society should have given them, but they did not stop the Provisional IRA.
The hon. Member for Armagh read out the words of Owen Carron—I cannot call him the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The Provisional IRA is continuing its struggle to achieve its aims—whatever sort of Ireland would result from that.
Northern Ireland Ministers will have to add to the continuance of the Act a strong and resolute security initiative. The late Rev. Robert Bradford suggested that the courts should have tougher sentences, including capital punishment, available to them. I know that we are supposed to be sensitive about criticising judges and magistrates, but it is surely an indictment of our courts that people who have been found guilty of terrorist crimes, including murder and attempted murder, have walked from the court room with non-custodial sentences. What faith can the people of Northern Ireland have in our legal system?
About three-quarters of those who are found guilty of membership of the Provisional IRA are allowed to walk free. The charge of membership of an illegal organisation is generally used when the RUC knows that the person concerned is guilty of much more, but cannot get the evidence to prove it. The police can prove that he is a member of the Provisional IRA or the INLA, but three-quarters of those who are found guilty of membership of those organisations that are killing my fellow citizens in Northern Ireland are given non-custodial sentences. Either we are at war with the Provisional IRA, or we are not. If we are—I believe that we should be—we cannot afford to allow its members to walk out of the courts after being

found guilty. Tougher sentences must be mandatory and, at least, minimum sentences must be available to the courts.
There should be an immediate review of the yellow card, the consultation that is required of members of the security forces before they can fire on people who have guns in their hands. The security forces must be given the absolute right to defend themselves in such circumstances without their having to consult and worry about the regulations on a yellow card. The Provisional IRA has all the advantages in this type of urban, guerrilla terrorist war. Everything is on its side because members of the IRA can lie in wait and fire on a passing patrol or blow them up. They can plan their operations and decide when and where they will launch their attack.
Under the present security policy our security forces have to react to whatever the IRA do. The hon. Member for Armagh referred to hunting and harrying. That is what should be done. The security forces should be on the offensive. The Provisional IRA should not know when next it will find the security forces coming through the door of its headquarters. We know where the Provisional IRA is based in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. People are well aware of IRA routes across the border. There should be tighter border security and search and seizure operations in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. While that may seem draconian to some hon. Members, I can assure them that if they had visited as many homes and had seen as many widows and orphans as I have they would be prepared to take that type of measure to save having to visit any more.
After 2,300 people have been killed, more than 25,000 maimed and mutilated and millions of pounds lost as a result of IRA subversion and terrorism, the people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members from Northern Ireland are asking "How many more will die, how many more will be maimed and how much more will be lost by way of finance before we debate this matter again"?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have not frequently taken part in the debates on the continuation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and, therefore, it is not for me a ritual occasion. No one could listen to the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—that might not be the appropriate parliamentary phrase to use—and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) without being conscious that time and again they face up to the tragic consequences of terrorism in Northern Ireland. No one could listen to what the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh said about his constituents and his obligation to visit widows and to attend funerals without feeling profoundly moved. Yet, in a sense, there is a more agonising dilemma facing the House that has not so far emerged in this debate.
Terrorists win their objectives in two ways. One is by destroying their enemies. The second is by destroying the very structure of law which democracy exists to defend. Therefore, it is right for the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) to stress that we, as a House of Commons in a parliamentary democracy, should perpetually review any legislation which in essence is hostile and alien to that democracy. If we do not do so, we shall allow the terrorists to win by the back door what they have not gained by the front door. That is the essential dilemma that any democratic Government attempting to


administer Northern Ireland are bound to have to face. It is not a unique situation for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not as much a different place as perhaps has been suggested in debates over the past few weeks.
Northern Ireland shares with Italy, Spain and other democratic countries in Western Europe the same awful dilemma of facing a terrorist challenge to democracy. To destroy democracy in the name of destroying terrorism is to allow terrorists to win the final victory. If Italian judges die at the hands of the Red Brigades because they are left vulnerable to terrorism by the democratic system, if a Spanish ETA terrorist blows up the forces of law and order, those countries share with Northern Ireland the attempt to try to sustain democratic institutions. They know that that requires courage and determination and that at the end of the day not to sustain those institutions is to have been defeated in the most complete sense.
Those of us from the mainland who insist that we must investigate what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has correctly described as "hateful legislation" must do so with an awareness of the suffering and sacrifice that we are asking the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, to sustain in the name of democracy. Any other response would seem to suggest that we do not care about the long succession of death, suffering and injury that the people of Northern Ireland have to bear.
We are therefore right to say that the Secretary of State should inquire into the necessity for legislation that is repellent to the democratic principle. If it must be extended every six months, for example, so be it, but it must be justified, because the onus of proof in a democracy has to lie with those who remove some part of the safeguards from individual liberties and from the right of our citizens to trial by jury.
The Secretary of State has done the right thing in establishing a review seven years after the previous review took place under Lord Chancellor Gardiner. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Mansfield, who has pressed consistently for an independent review. He is right to do so. He is, in so doing, defending the institutions of democracy. It was right for the Secretary of State to concede that a review should take place. I hope that it will be conducted in as open a way as is compatible with the overriding requirements of security in the Province of Northern Ireland. I hope also that it will be possible for people to submit their views to the judicial review, because that will strengthen the United Kingdom's argument before the bar of world opinion.
The House must not forget that we must do more than prove the case to ourselves. We must prove it also to those who wish all too often to show that what Britain is undertaking in Northern Ireland is wrong and is intended to destroy the rights of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the assistance that terrorism has received from across the Atlantic from democracies, in which some people wrongly believe that they are fighting for liberty when they put their money into the collecting plates. We must show decisively that they are not.
The last part of what I want to say comes down to the details of the Emergency Provisions Act. There are three aspects to which I wish to refer because I suspect that the judicial review will take note of what is said in the House

in this debate and earlier debates. Therefore, it is important that we should not regard this occasion simply as one to reiterate our past well-known views without drawing attention to the matters that we hope the review will take seriously into account.
The first aspect is the Diplock courts. As recently as the day before yesterday in The Irish Times a review was reported which showed that only 6 per cent. of the people who were polled in the Roman Catholic districts of Derry and Belfast and only 23 per cent. of Protestants in equivalent areas of Belfast believed that it was possible to get a fair trial under the Diplock courts.
I cannot say how accurate that poll was, but I believe that it raises considerable questions about the amount of confidence the people of Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic alike, place in the system of a single judge. Therefore, the case for sustaining the Diplock courts without any of the changes that the right hon. Member for Mansfield and others have suggested must be proven before the judicial review and not taken for granted.
The second issue is section 2(2) of the Emergency Provisions Act which relates to bail. As the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland said only a few days ago, it is almost impossible to get bail under those provisions. In a democracy, to make bail almost impossible to get is such a disastrously bad principle that again the House must be convinced by the review that it is absolutely essential to make no changes in section 2 of the Emergency Provisions Act.
The third and final aspect that I want to touch upon—in some ways in respect of this country's international status the single most disturbing one—and to which the right hon. Member for Mansfield referred, is the way in which confessions appear before the courts and the fact that the conditions that apply to them are much more narrowed and straitened than in the courts on the mainland. We know that "inhumane or degrading treatment" is now a reason for rejecting a confession. We also know that that is a much narrower phrase than the phrases that would normally rule out a confession in any other British court. Because intimidation can be alleged—it is often alleged—and it can be argued that confessions have been obtained by improper means, by threats of violence or the use of violence, we are in a peculiarly sensitive and fragile area.
A democracy has to make out the strongest arguments for accepting confessions that may be obtained by improper use of the forces of law and order. Therefore, once again we are entitled to ask the Government, in the course of the judicial review, to make absolutely certain that confessions that may be obtained in ways that go beyond what would otherwise be acceptable in a democratic court of law meet the onus of proof.
I believe that it would be wrong to allow the debate to pass without saying as strongly as possible that emergency legislation sustained year after year until it becomes almost a habit of mind is one of the most significantly dangerous things that can happen to a democracy. If it were not necessary—I am not suggesting that at the moment—or if it were to be sustained for one day longer than necessary, the terrorists would have obtained the goals that they seek.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not take up the comments of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), but I wonder why she said nothing about


the courts in Southern Ireland, which do not have the panoply of justice that is found on this side of the Irish Sea; yet the Republic is a democracy and no one suggests that its democracy is weakened by the fact that it has had to use exceptional means to deal with an exceptional circumstance. Misunderstood outside the Chamber, the right hon. Lady's comments might lead someone to suppose that the review has been forced on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because so many people have stated their misgivings about the way that the Diplock courts operate. If the right hon. Lady has evidence, she owed it to the House to bring it before us tonight. Otherwise, her speech may be misinterpreted. Far from helping the cause of democracy and the defeat of terrorism, she may have aided and abetted the latter most awful scourge.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In Dublin the only proof needed is a single police officer stating that he believes that an individual belongs to an outlawed organisation.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That underlines my point. The right hon. Lady should make her strictures north and south of the border if she wishes to be fair.
I welcome the order because the situation in Northern Ireland has not yet reached the stage where we can see the end of the emergency provisions. I also welcome the suggestion of a review. The review must satisfy all hon. Members that circumstances have changed so markedly in the Province that there is a need to change the law. Only then will it have a useful function.
Almost in his first words my right hon. Friend referred to progress on the political front. He placed considerable emphasis on the need for that progress if we are to deal with the security problem not only with the force of law and with the security forces but with the support of the community. I submit that political progress must mean a willingness by local politicians across the community divide to seek for and to support policies that will enable everyone in the Province to believe that they are being governed fairly and that their reasonable aspirations are being given proper expression.
By the end of the year it is likely that Northern Ireland will have a local Assembly. Its success will depend on the willingness of all its Members to give physical expression to those two aspirations and to do so accepting that the present borders of Northern Ireland are a physical statement of the wish of the majority of the people living there to live as part of the United Kingdom rather than as part of the Republic.
The wish of the majority—and their democratic right to self-determination—must be sustained by law and by the forces of law and order when there are those who would coerce them by force of arms into a political union against their wishes. That law must be one that can be implemented bearing in mind the circumstances in which it is enacted.
When we think of Northern Ireland, or even of Southern Ireland, the word "intimidation" springs straight to mind. For anyone to imagine that intimidation is not part and parcel of the daly existence of people in Northern Ireland is to know very little about the state of the Province and what is going on there. That is the background to the review, as is the roll-call of the murdered and the wounded, the shootings and the bombings which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the House in his speech.
I do not believe that there would be much disagreement with any of my remarks by any fair-minded politicians, whether in London, Belfast or Dublin, but, if I say that, I find myself hoping that Dublin at least will give rather more indication of its willingness to accept the right of Northern Ireland to exist, as long as the majority of its people so wish, than seems to be the case. If Dublin has its aspiration of a united Ireland—and it is a reasonable political aspiration—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No, it is not.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not. It seems to me that it is a perfectly reasonable aspiration for any Government to have a view of where its future lies.

Mr. Powell: It is not a perfectly natural aspiration for a country to claim the territory of another country. It is not a perfectly natural aspiration for France, for example, to claim part of Germany. The hon. Member is talking nonsense.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I did not say "claim". I said that if the Dublin Government seek the peaceful unity of North and South—.

Mr. Powell: How can that be a reasonable aspiration?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the Dublin Government seek the peaceful unity of North and South, or if the Cypriots in Greek Cyprus seek to have a unity once again with the Turkish part of Cyprus, I cannot see how that is either against the law or beyond the wishes of the people on either side of a border. If they seek that aspiration, as I suggest they do—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me— [Interruption.] I did not say "claim". If they seek to have that aspiration, it seems to me that a peaceful unity can come only out of the wishes of the people north and south of the border to be linked together.
If the Government of the South are anxious to see such unity come peacefully, then they have as much a responsibility as have those in the North to do their part in ending the blood letting which goes on, and to take action against those who, like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron), advocate that the armed struggle will continue and who seek to recruit young people to become killers in the North. I hope that the report in the Belfast Telegraph suggesting that the Garda are looking at the speech in question to see whether the hon. Member can be prosecuted under the southern Government's Act on incitement is correct, and that they will take action against him, for it seems to me that he is one of those who intend to perpetrate further killings, which may mean shooting and bombing in the North.
We heard a very powerful speech from the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and I am glad that I re-read his speech in last December's debate. I am glad that he repeated today several things that he said in that speech, for, like him, I find myself less and less able to understand the logic behind the 50 per cent. remission of prison sentences.
I hope that my hon. Friend, in winding up, will spend some time on that matter. As the hon. Gentleman said in December—and, I think, again tonight—effectively we may say, as my right hon. Friend said, that many people


have received prison sentences of 10 years or more, when we should say that they will spend only five years in prison.
If we are to make any sense of this policy, the concept of a parole board, which again the hon. Gentleman suggested last December, should be included. To give remission without any promise of good conduct seems to make nonsense of the sentence that was originally given. Why not give the man five years, and have done with it, and let him earn perhaps one-third remission, which any prisoner on this side of the Irish Sea can earn, by good conduct?

Mr. John Patten: I do not want to get into wider issues of penal policy, if only for fear of inciting the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) to intervene, because he has powerful views on the matter. I just want to clear up one misunderstanding by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), which perhaps followed the speech of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). It is important to realise that there is no 50 per cent. remission for people who have been duly convicted of murder.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend picks out murder, but he does not say that there is no 50 per cent. remission for crimes of terrorism. If he is saying that, I hope that he will make that clear. If he is not saying that, 50 per cent. remission is available for crimes of terrorism other than murder. My case—which was made so much better by the hon. Member for Armagh—should be answered. If the argument is that there is not enough cellular accommodation to contain all those who have been convicted of crimes of terrorism, let us come clean about it, and let us build adequate prison accommodation. If we think that this 50 per cent. remission somehow softens the attitude of the terrorist to the Government of the United Kingdom, we are barking up the wrong tree.
I put this question to my hon. Friend the Minister: how many of the terrorists who are currently awaiting prosecution, or who are already in prison, are there for the second or third time round? What is the rate of recidivism among terrorists? In my opinion, that figure is central to the argument that one can release prisoners after quite short sentences and they will not go back to that form of crime.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman has raised a most important aspect of sentencing for murder. Is he aware that there are two forms of sentence? First, there is the one that just says "life", and it rests with the Secretary of State on appeals, and petitions are entered. In the second, a number of years are mentioned. The Minister should clarify the matter.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thank the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for that extension of what I was saying. I hope that my hon. Friend will satisfy me and other hon. Gentlemen who have raised these matters, because the question of remission is a bone of contention, and one that now needs to be explained in greater detail than has occurred in the past.
I shall follow the hon. Member for Armagh in referring to the situation on the border. I had the rather tragic task of going to see Tynan Abbey a week after the killing of

Sir Norman Stronge and his son, a little more than a year ago. I had never examined the border between the North and South quite as closely as I did on that visit. Some of us imagine that the border is a clearly marked line between the North and South, so that one knows for certain which side one is on. In fact, it is an imaginary line which encircles the Six Counties. When I saw how easy it was for those who killed Sir Norman Stronge to cross from South to North, and that there was no physical obstacle of any sort in their way, I found myself wondering whether we are wise, year in, year out, to say that nothing can be done to make the border more of an obstacle to those who would cross it illegally. I can do no better than quote a leading article in the Belfast Telegraph of Monday 21 June, which said:
The border is still of vital strategic interest, since across it flow the money, arms and often the men who carry out the violence. It cannot be sealed, but it must be patrolled, and the accusations of a slackening of security on the southern side are worrying".
They are certainly worrying while the Government in the South give the impression that terrorists will not be handed back if they escape into the Republic and are arrested. Whether the Republic knows it or not, that policy, like its unwillingness to sign the European Convention on Terrorism on the grounds, apparently spurious, if the Republic's Foreign Minister of 1977 is to be believed, that the convention is against the spirit of the constitution, has created a deep bitterness among those whose lives are in danger in the North. Because of that, the strength and effectiveness of our own security forces along the border assume an even greater importance.
In those terms, can my hon. Friend say whether station sergeants are now required to reside near their police stations when that police station is along the border and whether those stations are continuously manned by an inspector or a sergeant at all times? Those comments arise perhaps initially from what happened at Tynan Abbey. It is, however, reasonable to ask a little more about the Army-police relationship and how it is evolving throughout the Province. Can my hon. Friend say how carefully selected are local police commanders and how much training they have received in command procedures with Army units including the UDR? There is a view in some quarters in the Province that the tactical support between the RUC and the UDR is not as effective as it should be, and that the UDR is slow to respond to calls from the RUC.
Do the RUC and the UDR carry out joint exercises with the Army, particularly involving the use of helicopters? Can I be assured that the police in frontier areas have received training in how to bring a helicopter into land so that a guide can be taken on board? Can I be told that the police have all the armoured vehicles that they require? I think I am right in saying that in the Tynan Abbey incident, if both police cars had been armoured, the terrorists would almost certainly not have got away. The fact that only the first vehicle was armoured and that it was involved in a crash with the terrorists' vehicle meant that it was out of use, and the second police car, which was unarmoured, could not be used against the terrorists with their high-velocity weapons.
May I be told whether Regular Army units which are stationed along the border are kept long enough in one place to have detailed topographical and demographical knowledge of the area? The comment made to me was that


there was an inclination to move these units about the border area which prevented them obtaining the detailed knowledge so necessary in this kind of operation.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend has asked some probing questions. The RUC, like the UDR and the Army generally in the Province, has all the equipment that it needs. If any request comes from the RUC, it is immediately and sympathetically considered. I can give that guarantee. I must reassure my hon. Friend that the co-operation between the RUC, both full-time reserve and part-time reserve, the UDR and other Regular Army units in the Province is at a high level. I do not think it would be possible or, indeed, wise for me to answer any of the questions that he has posed in the House. This would obtrude on matters of operational judgment that might be damaging to the security of the border areas themselves.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I recognise a portion of what my hon. Friend has said. There would be nothing against his writing to me as the point that I have made to him was put to me publicly. Some form of satisfaction might be accorded by him to me through a letter.

Mr. John Patten: I should be happy for my hon. Friend to call on me at a time that is convenient to himself to discuss these issues.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
Finally, I shall return to the Army, the RUC and the UDR. If, as I have suggested, with such an open border it behoves our security forces to increase their activities on the border as much as is possible, that does not seem in any way to allow the Republic to believe that it does not have a similar responsibility. If the Republic wants to have clean hands at the end of the struggle that is now going on in the North, if it wants to have hands that are clean of the blood of the innocent people who are still being murdered, it must show that it is as willing as we are to patrol its side of the border, to carry out the same surveillance of the border that I like to think that our security forces are currently employing. Surveillance of the border will produce the intelligence about those who cross it and where they cross it that will be most valuable to the security forces who are trying to capture those who come to the North to continue the campaign of terrorism and bloodshed.
Our security forces are already doing about as much as can reasonably be expected of them. I should like the border to become more of a physical obstacle than it now is. But for the sake of good Irish relations—relations between North and South—I should like to see the South demonstrate its determination, to see that it, too, is playing the greatest possible part in defeating the terrorists who are still such a cause of anxiety in the North.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will not take it amiss if I do not follow his line of argument. His latter comments would have been more appropriate to the other debate on Northern Ireland that has been taking place recently than to an order on the renewal of the Emergency Provisions Act.
I do not dissent from what was said by the Secretary of State and endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). They spoke of the

continuing tragedy of Northern Ireland and the almost impossible role with which the security forces are charged. It is a heartbreaking and seemingly impossible problem.
Debates on the emergency provisions are sobering events. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and others described passionately the tragedies, violence and crimes that take place in their constituencies. If placed in those circumstances, most of us would feel much the same. It would be difficult for any of us to be objective in such circumstances. I do not want it to be thought that, because we differ in our approaches to the issue, we do not understand or do no more than sympathise.
I am only sorry that the House is never fuller on these occasions. It might do many hon. Members good to listen to the speeches that are made in these debates. It might also be good for those of us who attend these debates as often as we can and perhaps get so close to the problem that we cannot see the wood for the trees to hear some fresh views from hon. Members who do not usually contribute. Certainly I have always hoped that Northern Ireland would attract much more attention and interest in the House.
This debate takes place twice annually. Automatically, therefore, the list of crimes and violence, horrid, unacceptable and revolting though they be, must be listed yet again. It is not enough, however, simply to do that automatically and then go through the ritual of supporting the continuation of the order and remaining silent about it. That is not what we are here for and no one would thank us if we adopted that approach. As the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) said, we are bound to examine this extraordinary legislation that we are being asked to continue. We should also determine the extent to which it might be counter-productive. That is the aspect that worries many of us most of all.
After those introductory remarks, no one will be surprised to hear that I was not satisfied with the kind of inquiry proposed or indeed with the rest of the Secretary of State's remarks. I was concerned when I read the press release from the Northern Ireland Information Service on 26 May announcing the inquiry. I felt that it was not the kind of inquiry that we needed. We asked for the inquiry on five different occasions, but the inquiry outlined by the Secretary of State was not the kind of inquiry that we envisaged.
With all due respect to Lord Jellicoe, who has been put in charge of the inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I was rather worried as I felt that this inquiry—I believe that the Secretary of State himself said this—must be a judicial inquiry, for reasons that I shall explain. Such an inquiry must be conducted by someone who is much closer to the courts and the experience of the courts because of the nature of the offences and the acts to be examined.
I was also concerned about the timing when I read the press statement. This cannot be allowed to drag on and on. Five debates means that it is two and a half years since we first asked for an inquiry. One would have thought that at least some preliminary work would have been done by now and that we would be almost at the point of agreeing to the inquiry going ahead and proceeding fairly speedily.
I do not accept that this inquiry must necessarily be linked to the Jellicoe inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The two pieces of legislation are different and they operate in different parts of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Prevention of Terrorism Act operates mainly here, whereas the Emergency Provisions


Act operates mainly there. The latter operates mainly through the courts, while the former has a different connotation. They do not necessarily have to be linked.

Mr. John Patten: I entirely take the point that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Provisions Act are separate pieces of legislation, but there is a considerable overlap. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, certainly in two of its parts, has considerable application in Northern Ireland. There is, therefore, a considerable link. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that they must be taken separately in terms of an examination into their workings.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is not really arguing against me. I am saying that they do not necessarily have to be taken one after the other. The two inquiries could run parallel with each other. There is nothing to suggest that we must await the outcome of Lord Jellicoe's inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act before looking at the Emergency Provisions Act. The press statement said that the timing of the inquiry into the Emergency Provisions Act would have to take into account the conclusions of Lord Jellicoe's review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I do not accept that view, which is why I tabled the amendment, which has not been selected.
I am not dissuaded from the terms of my amendment by the Secretary of State's announcement of the kind of inquiry that he envisages, nor am I too worried about the party policy aspects mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. Frankly, I have never been too worried about party policy or any other aspects. No one can say that Labour Party policy does not give plenty of scope for interpretation. I have always exercised more scope than most, and I know that in other circumstances my right hon. Friend would perhaps do the same. I do not have to be a slave to the words of a document with which I might even agree.

Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend will accept that as a Labour Party spokesman on this subject I speak not for myself but for the Labour Party and must take into account the virtually unanimous decision taken at our last conference. I must support the Labour Party's policy document. Obviously my hon. Friend, as a Back Bencher, has much more licence, but I am sure that he will accept that I must pursue party policy as enunciated at our conference.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention, but I shall get into difficulty if I take the argument too far. That conference decision did not necessarily discuss the policy in relation to the Emergency Provisions Act by itself. It spoke of "a fundamental review". I could interpret the word "fundamental" for the next three or four hours, and I am not a lawyer. I do not think that my amendment is outside the strict interpretation of party policy that was so ably advanced by my right hon. Friend. I certainly accept his stricture that he must speak for the party. That is fair enough. However, I do not necessarily have to accept every jot or tittle of that document.
Nothing that I have heard so far has dissuaded me from the sentiments expressed in my amendment, and I shall attempt to justify the kind of review that I believe to be

necessary. The Act was first introduced in 1973. It was amended in 1975 and 1977 to incorporate other emergency powers provisions, and it became the 1978 Act. It was originally the product of the Diplock report, and we all remember how controversial that report was at the outset. It was never accepted that it would stand the test of all time. The report remains controversial. It is probably even more controversial now that we have had experience of it on both sides of the Irish Sea. That must be taken into account.
The last inquiry into the operation was conducted by a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner. That begins to put into our minds the need for the judicial aspect of the inquiry. It was felt then, rightly, that we should put a Lord Chancellor, or somebody with that kind of experience, in charge. The Committee reported in January 1975, over seven years ago. Thus, it has been more than seven years since the last review.
We know that there is a growing demand in Northern Ireland, as well as here, for a fresh investigation into the operation of the Act, taking particular account of the effectiveness of the recommendations of the Bennett committee on interrogation methods, which reported in 1979, and the possibility of allowing part or all of the Act to lapse as part of the process of normalisation.
Like everbody else, I have been concerned only with the creation of some atmosphere in the Six Counties that would allow both communities to be reconciled. I have always wanted reconciliation. However difficult it may be, that must be the immediate target. If something is counter-productive and is causing problems, we must remove it if it is an obstacle in the way of reconciliation. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have adopted our attitude in the recent debates in yet another attempt to find another elected Assembly that may help to create an atmosphere that will allow the two communities to get together peacefully and talk about politics, like the rest of us, instead of indulging in violence and crime.
I feel strongly about the counter-productive elements that can be engendered by some of this emergency legislation, if it is allowed to go on and become worse. There has to be a limit. The process of normalisation means that we have to examine seriously the possibility of perhaps allowing parts of the legislation to lapse, or even all of it to disappear.
The Bennett committee was established following a number of serious allegations of violence, and the subject has been discussed at length in previous debates. These allegations were of violence against suspects held under the Emergency Provisions Act. The Bennett report recommendations concerning the treatment of suspects and access to solicitors and training and supervision of detectives were accepted by the Government, and we welcomed that acceptance.
The new Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir Jack Hermon, also expressed himself as being determined to eliminate violence against suspects, and we welcome that. Allegations of serious violence have—I hesitate to say this—almost ceased, although there were many such allegations some years ago. Now solicitors report complaints of malpractices only occasionally during interrogation.
However, even the absence of such allegations does not mean that the operation of the Act should go unchecked. Some research into the operation of the Act was carried out by the Cobden Trust, a registered charity established to do


research and education work into civil liberties. I commend the results of the research, one of which is entitled "Ten Years on in Northern Ireland". It is an excellent research document.
The hon. Member for Armagh remarked that some research had been done by academics who could "stand over their work", and the research to which I am referring was also done by academics who could stand over their work. They may have come to different conclusions, but the same criteria must apply. They found a number of things in their research. For example, they found that 90 per cent. of all arrests under emergency legislation, either the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act or the Prevention of Terrorism Act, do not result in any charge against the suspect. Many of those arrested are picked up at home in the early hours of the morning. They are taken to Gough or Castlereagh interrogation centres and held for questioning for extended periods before being released without charge.
We know that such operations, particularly when one person is arrested on a number of occasions or when a number of people are picked up from a small community and detained, serve to exacerbate still further the relations between the community and the RUC. That is one of the counter-productive elements to which I referred.
It was also found that a high proportion of cases going to the non-jury Diplock courts were not terrorist offences but robbery—and robbery is a scheduled offence—for which the police and court records disclose no evidence of a terrorist motive. That does not help to enamour the local community of the operation of the Act.
These studies also show that the police continue to rely heavily on confession statements, with about 90 per cent. of cases coming before the Diplock courts relying solely or mainly on a confession statement. It was also found that younger suspects and those who are held for longer periods are more likely to confess. The Bennett committee recommendation on the length of questioning and the limit on the number of officers involved in interrogating one suspect are not always observed. Considerable pressure is put on suspects to confess and the Bennett recommendations are not always followed.
The findings are the product of serious research. They must concern us all in relation to the operation of the Act and its effect on the communities. The distinction between the role of the Army and the role of the police is blurred by their common involvement in arrest and interrogation operations involving the questioning of detainees' families and friends about their political views and associations—in other words, "screening"—rather than on specific criminal activities of which the detainee is suspected. That could operate against the Act.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, in a press notice released on 21 June 1982, said:
Under sections 11 and 14 of the Emergency Provisions Act 1978, both the police and the Army have special powers of arrest. A constable can arrest any person whom he suspects of being a terrorist and this person may then be detained for up to 72 hours. A member of the Army can arrest, and detain for up to four hours, a person suspected of committing or being about to commit an offence. There is no requirement that there be objective grounds, such as might be reviewed by a court, for exercising these powers.
A subjective decision to arrest may be implemented in a straightforward way. The Advisory Commission has thought that, at a minimum, there must be a reasonable grounds before an arrest is made and all officers must be accountable for their decisions.

That underlines the blurring of the roles of the two forces. After giving a number of examples the commission continued:
These examples show the limited, and reactive, role of the Diplock courts. It would be an exaggeration to say that all the important decisions are made prior to the trial in the Diplock courts, but certainly some highly significant aspects of the process do precede the judicial hearing. It is surely vital that the use of powers which can deprive someone of his liberty should be subject to review of some sort. It must be correct that people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Despite legal technicalities, a fairer test on the admissibility of statements could and should be introduced. Perhaps it would be advantageous if the judges drafted the rules, or a code of practice, laying down what had to be done before any statement of confession could be admitted in court.
The Cobden Trust research set out a code of practice that could apply in the cases outlined by the standing commission. The standing commission, in its seventh report produced on 11 March 1982, referred to a review of the emergency legislation that it had been carrying out. It considered that the time had come to question the very existence of the Diplock courts—with one judge and no jury—for scheduled offences, rather than simply examine matters of detail thrown up by the operation of the Act. That is a significant statement from an important body which examined this matter closely.

Mr. Freeson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever may be the desirability of the review that has been announced by the Secretary of State, in view of the work that has already been done by these organisations to which my hon. Friend has referred at length, there is no need to delay matters for the indefinite period to which the Secretary of State referred? On some of these matters, action could be taken forthwith.

Mr. Stallard: That was precisely the point I was making. I did not think that we had to wait, as the Secretary of State implied, to the end of the Lord Jellicoe inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Some matters are already well documented and certainly well enough known to be part of a parallel inquiry now. That was one of the purposes of my amendment. The commission was mainly concerned about the single judge issue, but its general view was that there should be a review of the legislation. That conclusion must be emphasised.
Last year a conference on the administration of justice in Northern Ireland was held at Queen's university in Belfast. Delegates were connected mainly with the peace movement as well as some of the legal groups and the conference was sponsored by the National Council for Civil Liberties. The conference was reconvened this year. Both conferences stressed the need for a judicial review into the working of the Emergency Provisions Act.
Thus, all who have examined the problem closely have concluded that a judicial review is needed and that it need not have to wait for as long as the Secretary of State implied. In my amendment I also mentioned the terms of reference, as did the Secretary of State, who said that he would speak about the subject later. I do not see why he could not then have announced the terms of reference. At one stage he seemed almost to be pre-empting the decision of the inquiry or the recommendations that might come from it.
Lord Gardiner and his committee were asked:
to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the


preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice, and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and to make recommendations"—
which of course they did.
Now the terms of reference must be much broader and the inquiry must last longer. From the research and discussions that have taken place, we can see how broad those terms of reference ought to be. They should question whether in the administration of justice there is now any need for the Emergency Provisions Act in view of the dangers to civil liberties and human rights that that legislation has presented for nearly 10 years. The committee of inquiry should consider the use of the Act for screening rather than for the interrogation of those suspected of criminal activity. It must also consider the provisions in the Act for obtaining confessions and statements and the extent to which the police are thus encouraged to obtain by methods that may be unacceptable confessions that are often unreliable.
A desire has been expressed by many groups, and confirmed by an opinion survey carried out by the standing commission, for a return to jury trials. We all understand what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said about the intimidation of witnesses. The Gardiner committee referred to the number of witnesses who had been intimidated, but admitted that there was no evidence of the intimidation of jurors.
There was evidence of intimidation of witnesses and none of us can be surprised that some witnesses were afraid. No doubt even in London many witnesses are intimidated into not appearing at a trial. That is not peculiar to Northern Ireland, and the two year's statistics quoted by my right hon. Friend do not necessarily rule out consideration of a return to trial by jury for some offences, particularly as there is no evidence that jurors were intimidated. We have our suspicions about what might happen, but there are some cases in which jury trials would be appropriate in the Six Counties.

Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend will know from my previous involvement in these matters that I have considerable sympathy with the view that we must get the balance right between control of the situation and not undermining our aim of winning the support of both communities.
My hon. Friend will also be aware from the Cobden Trust book to which he has referred that, although the evidence on intimidation is not good, the trust points out, perhaps to the surprise of some people, the difficulty of getting Unionist paramilitaries convicted with a jury system. A significant change has been seen there, and I trust that my hon. Friend takes that into account when he says that some cases could be tried by juries.

Mr. Stallard: I was saying that there is no need for the blanket abolition of juries. Some of us would like to see a partial return to the jury system.
Another term of reference for an inquiry should be to consider the role of the DPP and the Attorney-General who are responsible for descheduling an offence when there is no evidence of terrorist motives and when a jury trial would be appropriate even under the existing law.
An inquiry should also look at the provisions for bail in the Emergency Provisions Act. That matter was

mentioned by the right hon. Member for Crosby. The enforcement of the Bennett recommendations on the supervision of the police and the handling of complaints against them could also be part of the terms of reference.
In the view of myself and others more expert than I, an inquiry of the sort that I have outlined could be carried out only by someone with experience of the operation of criminal trials preferably as a judge. I said at the outset that I was worried that the Secretary of State might be implying that Lord Jellicoe, whose excellent knowledge and character I concede, may be asked to continue from the Prevention of Terrorism Act inquiry into an Emergency Provisions Act inquiry. That would be a mistake; it must be a judicial inquiry.
The composition of the body conducting the inquiry, the type of inquiry and the terms of reference are crucial. Indeed, the terms of reference are so crucial that they should be discussed in the House before they are put into effect. That would give us the benefit of the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House and perhaps we would ensure that we set up an inquiry that the seriousness of the present tragic situation deserved.
While the inquiry must allow time for interested parties to give evidence, it should not be allowed to drag on as sometimes inquiries, and indeed speeches, are inclined to do. Therefore, I hope that a report of an inquiry of the type I have suggested can be made available in time for the next renewal debate. I further hope that when the Secretary of State replies he will be able to accept the points that I have made on behalf of a great many people who have taken much trouble researching the workings of the Emergency Provisions Act.
It is no use saying that we must wait for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act before we can examine the matter. That is not the answer. Enough has been done to allow the inquiry to start and to report in a reasonable time and to give those who are working hard on the reconciliation front in Northern Ireland some hope that the issue will not be shoved under the counter for another 12 or 18 months or until after the next election when perhaps someone else will have to deal with it. That is not the answer. Unless the Secretary of State can give an assurance that there will be a judicial review within the time limit for which I have asked and with the terms of reference debated in the House, I shall have to divide the House.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: I share a good many of the anxieties that were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). Although I shall not go over the details with which he has dealt I shall refer to the latter part of his remarks. While welcoming the Secretary of State's announcement, the impression that he gave of the long time scale of the intended review is not satisfactory to me, to my hon. Friend or to other hon. Members. It was announced in May after the Secretary of State or his predecessor had been pressed on the matter over a long time. It was further remarked upon, and no more than that, in his opening speech and during his remarks he indicated that he did not expect work to start until about September or October. I do not find that satisfactory.
As I said in an intervention earlier, the report to which my hon. Friend referred shows that a great deal of work has already been done on certain aspects of the operation


of the Emergency Provisions Act. It has already emerged that some important areas require attention and change. We do not need another six months, another year or whatever length of time it may be beyond that, for the House to have before it some recommendations for change.
With the time scale implied in the Secretary of State's remarks, if there are to be legislative changes put to the House, we may find ourselves dealing with them in 12 or 18 months from now. Why do we have to wait for so long before a number of the measures referred to by my hon. Friend are dealt with by the House? I put it quietly but I put it seriously that we do not need to wait so long. Changes in the Emergency Provisions Act could be introduced quickly.
I endorse my hon. Friend's strongly held view that the review should be a judicial review. I was not clear from the Secretary of State's remarks that we would have anything more than a significant judicial figure on the panel of inquiry. We are entitled to know whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to set up a judicial inquiry without his necessarily having to set down today the details and the terms of reference. He has made it clear that he is not in a position to do that anyway.
Most of the debates that we have had on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisons) Act have been interesting and valuable for individual Members—I have found tonight's debate valuable, especially the speech of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—but, as some have said, they have become rituals. If the emergency legislation is to continue, the case for doing so must be justified on every occasion. If it is not, why bother to have six-monthly debates and six-monthly Divisions?
Having listened to all but the opening five minutes of the Secretary of State's speech, I can say that he did not justify the continuation of the emergency legislation. He did not present the argument for so doing in chapter and verse. There may be a case for continuing to renew it, but he did not present it to the House. I have read previous debates of this character in Hansard and I have attended some of them and I know that we are rarely presented with a full justification for renewal. Without necessarily accepting the conclusions drawn by the hon. Member for Armagh, we had more justification for renewal in his speech than in that of the Secretary of State. I did not agree with all the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman drew at the end of his speech, although I was extremely impressed by the general tenor of his remarks.
We have had this six-monthly ritual over a long period and no real justification for continuing to implement the Act. It is about time that we took this legislation and its interference with civil liberties more seriously. We are to have a review, and let it be a prompt judicial review. Let it not drag on for 12 or 18 months before the House is able to make changes in the current legislation or seriously to consider whether the continuation of the Act is justified. There are some who believe it to be counter-productive in the fight against terrorism.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Armagh I began to wonder whether I should participate in the debate. It was a compelling and moving speech. He has no reason to apologise for being angry about what he had to describe and what he has described previously. We on this side of the water who do not represent constituencies such as Armagh do not have first-hand experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North said, if I

and others represented a constituency such as Armagh, we might well draw virtually the same conclusions as the hon. Member for Armagh and might be just as angry and passionate. I feel passionate, but first-hand experience would make a tremendous difference.
As I have said, I cannot accept all the conclusions of the hon. Member for Armagh. We cannot accept that these practices are right or effective after all these years when we know what is being done within the context of the Act and other legislation and when we consider some of the practices that are applied by the authorities within the terms of the Act.
I reinforce a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams). An essential par: of the theory of urban guerrilla warfare and of some other political revolutionaries in this country, as elsewhere, is the need to provoke the State into violent reaction. I fear that under the operation of the Emergency Provisions Act, like the Prevention of Terrorism Act, that has increasingly happened in the Unted Kingdom over the years. In a world of much poverty, mass disease, despotic war, terrorism, political injustice, of which Ireland's history has plenty of examples, the obscenity of the arms race and so-called sophisticated weaponry, there is an urgent need for more people to seek radical change. All of us in our different ways should accept that.
There is nothing radical or revolutionary about the bullet or the bomb, whoever uses it. Bully boy politics remain bully boy politics. They impoverish us all, whether we support them or not. We react in the way in which bully boy politicians, the terrorists, wish us to react.
Terrorising the innocent and murdering men, women and children, or supporting those who do, is barbaric and ineffectual. In a society such as ours where by no stretch of the imagination can we be described as helots who require such political action, we cannot accept for a moment the rejection of the politics of persuasion in favour of so-called revolutionary politics or Vanguardist politics, whether that is represented by the IRA in Northern Ireland or by other groups elsewhere in this country and other countries.
Whatever the cause and whatever the history, terrorism carries the same political disease that drove Hitler, Stalin and others like them to conduct themselves as they did. However, we must ask ourselves when we respond in Government and in Parliament in the way in which we have tended to respond over the years whether, as was being argued to some extent by the right hon. Lady, we are giving them the victory or the prospect of victory.
I shall not develop that approach because it is not the occasion to do so. It is in that mood and with that concern that the State and terrorism should not feed on one another that I turn in detail to one aspect of operations by the authorities under the Emergency Provisions Act. In view of the questions and correspondence in which I have been involved in connection with the use of plastic bullets, the Secretary of State will not be surprised when I turn to that aspect, which shows where things are going wrong and have been for some time.
I hope that the review of the operation of the Act goes as wide as the Secretary of State suggested, to include the relationship of the practices of the security forces—whether it is the Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment—to the policy controls of the Secretary of State and his colleagues over methods of maintaining security.
The operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, like the Prevention of Terrorism Act, is already having an effect on the rest of the United Kingdom. It affects civil liberties throughout the land. For example, its operation in Northern Ireland bred the decision, following the inner city riots a year ago, to make available to police forces the riot control weapons previously used by the Army and the RUC in Northern Ireland. Their effect in maintaining law and order is dubious but they endanger limb and life not only of violent but of non-violent demonstrators and of innocent bystanders.
As I said, the most significant of those is the plastic bullet—baton rounds. Water cannon are unwieldy and vulnerable and they exhaust their water supply rapidly. They are of no use with ever-changing circumstances involving crowds. Reports have made that clear. Some time ago a Home Office working group on protective clothing and equipment made that clear.
The plastic bullet has a solid cylinder, 1½in. in diameter and 4in. long. It weighs ⅓lb. It is fired from guns with a velocity of 60m to 75m per second, according to the Secretary of State for Defence. It is about the size of a cricket ball, appreciably harder and is fired at 134 to 160 mph.
It is highly dangerous and has produced a disturbing crop of injuries. Up to mid-November, 43,000 such bullets had been fired, causing 10 known deaths. At c. 42 of the Official Report for 6 July 1981 the Secretary of State revealed that in less than two months 110 people went to hospital with injuries caused by plastic bullets, 45 of whom needed to be admitted as in-patients. According to United States Army research, which is available to the Government under exchange agreements, heavy casualties were to be expected from using such a weapon. Riot control weapons with impact energy above 90 ft/lb were in the "severe damage region". Previous answers to parliamentary questions that I put down stated that at its extreme range of 50yd the plastic bullet has an energy level of 110ft/lbs, while at 5yd it is 210 ft/lbs. The plastic bullet is perhaps the most dangerous of the so-called less lethal riot control weapons used by national security forces anywhere in the world.
It is doubly disturbing that there is mounting evidence that plastic bullets are being used freely, if not irresponsibly, in Northern Ireland. I hope that the situation will be looked into, as I have urged for some time. Numerous incidents have been reported in which standing instructions on the use of plastic bullets have been violated. They should be used only when they would represent "minimum and reasonable force", they should be aimed at selected persons and not indiscriminately at a crowd, they should be aimed at the lower part of the body and fired at a minimum range of 20m except where personal safety is threatened. Disregard of those minimal precautions has helped to inflame already difficult circumstances, as well as increasing the number of casualties.
The exceptionally high rate of use of plastic bullets last year gives the impression of almost uncontrolled firing. I use the word "impression" because I shall quote figures that reinforce one's anxiety about the matter. Whereas 13,000 were fired in the eight years 1973–80, some 30,000 were fired in 1981, 16,500 of them in the month of May

alone. Those are extraordinary figures. The previous highest level for baton round firing in a year was just over 23,000 in 1972, and the highest figure for a single month was just under 4,000 in February 1972.
By no standards could the violence confronting the security forces in the early summer of last year compare with the intensity of the disturbances in 1972, the worst year of the present troubles in Northern Ireland—a year of massive upheavals over internment, Bloody Sunday in Derry and its aftermath, and so on.
To give just one index of comparison, the number of deaths arising out of the conflict in Northern Ireland in 1981—I know that the figures sound cold but I am making a point of comparison—was 108, of which 10 were soldiers. In 1972, there were 103 Army deaths out of a grisly total of 467. Was 1981 a worse year than 1972 in the light of those figures? Yet look at the figures for plastic bullets that were used which I have quoted. There does not seem to be any effective justification for the high level of use of plastic bullets last year. It suggests a level of irresponsibility, possibly of indiscipline, or failure of control of some kind, which bodes ill for their use in the rest of the United Kingdom should that ever occur—and they are in stock now.
The Government need to take members of the public much more fully into their confidence if they do not wish to see the much-valued relationship of trust between the British public and police severely frayed by the introduction of the riot gear from Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom. The secretive reflexes of Government should be controlled. Why, for example, have repeated requests by hon. Members over the years for information on the precise safety tests carried out on these weapons and their results been fobbed off with empty phrases? We do not get the right answers. Now that the use of the weapons is being stopped elsewhere, after the Ireland experience, it is time for openness on this issue of key importance.
There is, indeed, a strong case for including under the review a public inquiry into the safety and characteristics of the weapons, to be carried out before they are used more widely in the United Kingdom. At present there is great stress from the Home Secretary, and from the Home Office working group on protective clothing and equipment for the police, on their being used only as a "last resort".
Were there really just under 30,000 occasions of last resort in Northern Ireland last year? The implicit double standards—with extreme verbal reluctance to employ in the rest of the United Kingdom a weapon in every-day use on the streets of Belfast, Derry and elsewhere—has already provoked adverse responses in Northern Ireland, and I think the Secretary of State is well aware of that.
However, I am at least as worried by the obverse of the coin, that once the novelty of the weapons has worn off and the British public becomes accustomed to their presence in the police armoury, the lax situation that appears to have existed recently in Northern Ireland will become evident here, too. Then we may see these weapons in use against groups of people who are not a serious threat to life or property, but who are campaigning in their own ways without threat of violence. It is a slippery slope that we should not tread. A number of bodies, for example, the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, and the Council for Science and Society, have urged the Government not to extend their use, and have supported the need for an inquiry into their use in Northern Ireland.
I believe that the House should also endorse that view. I hope that it will, and I hope that the Secretary of State will do so.
We have seen in British cities, in different circumstances but with some of the same social and economic backgrounds, the inflammable nature of the human results which flow from violent situations. It would not take much in the way of repressive policing or the repressive use of this kind of weapon by authorities elsewhere to set up another chain reaction. It is the sort of lesson that we should have learnt from the sad history of technological riot control in Northern Ireland, but so far we do not seem to be attempting to learn those lessons.
I end with a general observation, which I make not just as a rhetorical flourish at the end of my remarks. We must beware not only of terrorism but of our own, even unintended, abuse of power, whether it be technological or political. Each feeds on the other in a world of increasing insensitivity and violence. Let there be no mistake about it. If we continue to accept these things, unquestioned and unchallenged, we in this House will be infected by the insensitivity of much of the violence and aggressiveness that is spreading throughout the world today.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I again place on record my instinctive distate for this type of legislation. I have lived in Northern Ireland under a succession of repressive Acts of Parliament such as this, and it is my honest and considered opinion that this type of legislation is counter-productive, and does not do what it is intended to do.
On every occasion when a renewal debate takes place, everyone who is present listens with concern and respect to what has to be said by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). For many years, almost weekly—certainly monthly—he has been losing close personal friends. There was a time, in the 1970s, when the same thing was happening to me, when I lost many, many friends who were brutally murdered and assassinated by so-called Loyalist paramilitary gangs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) realises, in so far as it is possible for a Member of Parliament on this side of the Irish Sea to realise, the emotion and feelings of frustration and anger that are generated by the continuing succession of murders. This legislation is on the statute book, has been on the statute book, and has been renewed twice a year, and yet this grisly total of murders continues to mount.
Recently I acquired a video. During the recent weeks I have been taping news bulletins about the Falkland Islands, the war in the Middle East, and the war in the Lebanon. Neatly interspersed between the tragedies there, only last week and the week before, there was the picture of Belfast devastated by car bombs set off by the IRA, people who are allegedly from the same tribe as I am in Northern Ireland—because there is a tribal situation there. A car bomb was set off indiscriminately outside a hostel where 28 young nurses were badly injured. Even tonight, in my constituency, clearing-up operations are taking place following a car bomb explosion that severely damaged and almost demolished 300 houses. That happened in a Catholic district, not a Loyalist area, of Northern Ireland. This explains why so much emotion is generated by Northern Ireland Members when we discuss these matters. We live with the reality of what terrorists can do to us and to our constituents.
I should like to draw the Secretary of State's attention to what I hoped would not happen but what, in fact, has happened. This legislation has taken on a tribal aspect. Catholics, who are the minority in Northern Ireland, feel that the Emergency Provisions Act is aimed at them. It is mostly in their community that the arrests and the detentions take place in the early hours of the morning. I accept that on many occasions the Act has been used against Loyalist paramilitaries. It has, however, to be stated that it is now accepted in Northern Ireland that the Act is aimed at the Catholics. Whether that is or is not the case, the fact is that this is what people believe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East rightly drew attention to the great concern and anger within the Catholic community about the over-use of plastic bullets. The Secretary of State cannot afford to underestimate the feeling among the Catholic population about the use of plastic bullets in riots which they feel have been generated by the IRA. There can be no doubt that

some of the 10 people, perhaps all of them, although I am not in a position to say, who have been killed by plastic bullets have been innocent.
When a plastic bullet kills an innocent Catholic, that is not a victory for the security forces, for the Government or for legislation that permits the use of such bullets. It is a victory for the IRA, which brutally exploits the situation. I have seen the funerals. I have seen the statements that emerged from the IRA when a young teenage girl—some of the victims are not even teenagers—has been killed by a plastic bullet. The over-use of these bullets creates great friction and hostility. It is counter-productive. It drives a wedge between the majority and the minority communities.
I recognise that members of the majority Unionist and Protestant population, hearing what I say, will remark "We always knew Gerry Fitt was a secret supporter of the IRA". If one voices opposition to this Act, which the majority Protestant population see as being on their side, this must mean, in their view, that I am giving covert support to the IRA. That is patently not so. It is, however, the way in which debates on renewal of these provisions are interpreted in Northern Ireland.
When the issue of plastic bullets was mentioned earlier in this debate, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked whether live bullets would be preferred. That is a big debating point in Northern Ireland. Over the past few years— I am not going back to "bloody Sunday"—many innocent people have been killed by real bullets. I refer to a case that I have brought to the attention of the Northern Ireland Office and about which I have written to the Prime Minister. It concerns a 15-year-old boy called Danny Barrett. Everyone will concede that members of the IRA in the Ardoyne area of Belfast, in July last year, were shooting at the security forces. A soldier on top of Flax Street Mill, in evidence that he gave to the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that he thought he saw a puff of smoke and fired at it. There was no puff of smoke but he killed the 15-year-old boy.
I have spoken to the parents of that young boy. They are absolutely heart broken. It will take a long time for them to get over, if they ever do, the loss of their young son who was doing nothing but standing outside the door of his home. There was shooting in the area. But the soldier was not on the ground. He was on the top of Flax Street Mill. It is unlikely that anyone would have regarded him as a target, but the soldier fired down into a bunch of children with a live bullet and killed young Danny Barrett. Needless to say, that event has caused much concern. It leads to other questions which should be answered.
The case was sent to the DPP who issued a statement saying that there would be no prosecution in that case. It is only because I have inside information that I am able to refer to the puff of smoke. It was different for the parents. The papers were sent to the DPP. Then a policeman called on the bereaved parents saying that there had been word from the DPP—there would be no prosecution.
Moreover, the inquest on that young boy has not been heard. That is another cause for worry in Northern Ireland. When people are killed in such circumstances, whether by plastic bullets or, as was Danny Barrett, with live ones, it takes many months, if not going into a second year, before an inquest is held. All sorts of excuses are trotted out by the Northern Ireland Office. They say something about administrative difficulties. I see no opportunity for


administrative difficulties in the holding of an inquest. It would be in the interests of the public if inquests were held with all due speed and if all arrangements were made so that the relations of the person who has been killed could have the matter clarified.
It is felt that when people die in such circumstances, inquests are often prolonged for six months or a year—in Danny Barrett's case it is nearly a year—in the hope that there will be another set of atrocities and people will have forgotten about the first one. I am sure that there are many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who have forgotten the name of Danny Barrett and the circumstances in which he died. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland would not recall the 10 people who were killed by plastic bullets to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East referred. It is in the interests of neither the Government nor the community to prolong the time before inquests take place.
I sometimes read the Republican newspapers that are sent to me privately. They are put through my door in the early hours of the morning to keep me up to date with what is being said about me. They do not make good reading sometimes. Those papers and even the legitimate press have often said that people who will read these articles with more generosity of spirit than I believe that soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland can kill anybody and get away with it. Only in a small minority of cases can the verdict be anything other than guilty. In almost every case of a soldier or policeman taking the life of an individual, if there is the slightest doubt, the verdict is always in favour of the member of the security force.
In Northern Ireland what I have just said will be interpreted as an attack on the security forces. It is no such thing. I recognise the tremendous difficulties under which the security forces are labouring. I am only too well aware of the problems facing the UDR which the hon. Member for Armagh mentioned—I would not object to calling him my hon. Friend on this occasion. When members of the IRA murder those UDR men, they say that they are shooting at a uniform or at a member of the security forces, but they are shooting milkmen, bakers, shop assistants, barbers, shop fitters, labourers, unemployed people and tradesmen. They are shooting members of the Protestant community, and well they know it.
The recent gruesome catalogue of murders of members of the security forces, particularly in the Strabane and Armagh areas, has been condemned by every voice that I know which represents the Catholic community, including the political and religious leaders, so the IRA cannot claim to be acting in the interests of the Catholic community. I support much of what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said in relation to the murderous campaign and the continuing tradegy in Northern Ireland. He said, as is said all too often, that 2,300 people had died in Northern Ireland as a result of the IRA campaign of terrorism. That is not strictly true. It is said quickly and some of the newspapers here would probably jump on it, but the IRA was not responsible for 2,300 deaths, although I freely admit that it was responsible for the majority of them.
I refer here to what is known in Northern Ireland as "what-about-ery". That is what it is called when a Unionist stands up and lists a catalogue of murders of members of the Protestant community and I am supposed to say "Ah, but what about …?" in an attempt to justify the other side in a macabre game of "You are worse than us". I am

not in that game at all. At the present time, the IRA is responsible for the major part of the death and destruction taking place.
The Protestant, so-called Loyalist paramilitary groups are still there, however. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleague condemned them today for the attempt to blow up a Catholic church in the Cavehill Road in Belfast just over a week ago. That was done for exactly the same reasons as IRA members were on hunger strike last year. There is no difference between them. A person called Somerville was found guilty of taking part in the atrocious murder of the Miami show band to which the hon. Member for Epping Forest referred. That man is now claiming political status. The Government have rightly refused to give him political status, so his colleagues outside the prison decided to blow up a Catholic church. A large number of people could have been killed. The Protestants, so-called Loyalist paramilitary groups are certainly still there. I condemn the IRA and I admit that it is responsible for the major part of the tragedy now taking place, but we must be ever mindful that there are two sides in this conflict.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take particular note of the case that has been made about the excessive use of plastic bullets and especially the case of Danny Barrett, who was shot last year and whose inquest has still not taken place.
In another case, a person by the name of Rafferty was interrogated by the police five or six years ago. When he went into the police station, he had all his physical abilities about him. After being interrogated, he emerged from the police station badly beaten up. He was examined by a doctor who verified that there were cuts and bruises all over his body. He said that he had been beaten up in the police station. Again, this is not an attack on the police, although I can almost hear people in Belfast saying that it is an attack on the police who in their eyes can do no wrong.
When that man left the police station, he was badly bruised; of that there is no doubt. He was examined by a doctor and the police said that his wounds were self-inflicted. There may well be some injuries that can be self-inflicted, and I have no doubt that in their attempt to discredit the police and the RUC interrogating officers some IRA men inflict wounds on themselves. However, the extent of the injuries suffered by Mr. Rafferty convinces me that they were not self-inflicted.
Mr. Rafferty has fought year after year, at inquiry after inquiry and in court after court to prove that his injuries were not self-inflicted and that he was beaten. He reached the end of the line in the last two or three days, when the High Court decided that there was considerable doubt which must be exercised in favour of the police.
That was an added bonus for the IRA. It was absolutely delighted with that verdict, because it said "It proves once again that the police can do whatever they like with you. Tell the Catholic community to be careful with the RUC, because the RUC is the enemy." Had that verdict been otherwise, some people would have believed that we could still expect justice where it was due.
The feeling in Northern Ireland is that in a tribal sense the Act is deliberately aimed against the Catholic community. That may not be so, but that is what people believe. They believe that the security forces, even when guilty of dereliction of duty, receive the benefit of the doubt.
The parents of someone who has lost his life, such as those in the case of Danny Barrett, should be asked to give evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions, yet those parents were not. They were told that the papers would go to the DPP. Afterwards, a policeman told them that the DPP had considered the case and had taken the view that the soldier was on top of the Flax Street Mill, was worried about all the shooting taking place, saw smoke, thought it was a gun—which it was not—killed the young boy, but was not acting with malicious intent. As a result, the DPP decided to do nothing about it. That does not bring back that young boy's life. I have met the young boy's parents and they are absolutely heart-broken about the circumstances in which their young 15-year-old innocent son died.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, the Army has the yellow card. Some people think that it is too restricted and that the Army should be given more leeway. If a soldier is able to shoot to kill merely because he thought he saw a puff of smoke, I do not believe that the yellow card is the proper means of allowing the Army to fire.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North will remember the case of his constituent Mr. Boyle. The hon. Gentleman was incensed at that. Therefore, the Army can, and does, make mistakes. When it does, it should admit the fact. If there is an attempt to vindicate everything that the Army does, people in Northern Ireland who do not support the terrorists will begin to have less respect for the security forces.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Like most hon. Members, I deplore the need for this order after 13 years. Most hon. Members in the House 13 years ago did not expect that there would be a need for it in 1982. I am disappointed that some hon. Members should have found it necessary to table an amendment because one of the great things about the House is the unanimity with which hon. Members have approached the problems of Northern Ireland and the question of how to deal with terrorism.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), for whom I have the greatest admiration. He is an extremely courageous man, and his integrity is of the highest order. I am afraid, however, that I cannot agree with him in his support for the amendment. He said that the Catholic community felt threatened because of the arrests in the early morning, which he felt were devisive. However, that is the only time when the forces of law and order are able to conduct that type of exercise with some certainty of being able to achieve their objective, and do it with as little bloodshed as possible. This technique was followed recently in the South Atlantic, where considerable advantage was taken of the enemy when they were sleeping. An enormous amount of bloodshed was saved as a result.
In a war, one must expect some hurt to be suffered, certainly by the security people whose purpose is to help to maintain law and order. We know that in the past CS gas and rubber bullets have been used as an alternative to lead bullets. More recently plastic bullets have been used. I am not surprised that an enormous number of plastic bullets are now used.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that he considered the figure to be excessive, but I should prefer to see a number of people in hospital because of an injury from a plastic bullet than the death of one soldier, killed in trying to do his duty on the streets of Northern Ireland. I feel that the yellow card is quite restrictive enough.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, West has had an opportunity to visit some of the ranges that are used to train soldiers for service in Northern Ireland. He may know that I have recently completed quite a long service in the Reserves and I have on more than one occasion had the opportunity to use this type of range.
It is extremely difficult to tell whether one is about to be fired at from a window or doorway in a narrow Northern Ireland street. A soldier has a split second to react to whatever happens. Somebody in a window may be using a pair of binoculars, a camera, or just a hairdrier. All of these visions in a window can easily be mistaken for someone using a small arm.
Therefore, we have to congratulate the security forces on the low number of accidents caused to the population. I feel that when there is danger of this sort people should keep well out of the way if they are not involved. This applies to accidents and fires in England as well. It would be fatal for people to mingle with the fire brigade or the ambulance service, or to interfere, because that only delays the work of those services. In like manner, if people are foolish enough to appear at a window or door during a shooting they run a grave risk which should not be underestimated.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned Danny Barrett, a 15-year-old boy. It is tragic for parents when a child whom they love dearly is cut down in the prime of life. Parents have a grave duty. I hope that the parents of that boy, and other parents in Northern Ireland, will consider carefully what they should advise their children to do in such circumstances. They should advise them to steer clear of riots.

Mr. Fitt: I mentioned the case because the young boy was standing at his own door. He was not in the street and there was no riot, although IRA gunmen had been shooting.

Mr. Thorne: I took particular note that there had been gunfire in the area. It is foolish to stand near a door or window in such circumstances. The ranges to which I referred simulate people appearing in doorways and windows. A soldier with a firearm in his hand must decide in a split second whether the person in the doorway or window is aiming a gun or a camera. It is not easy to decide whether to fire one's weapon before the other person fires.
Parents have a duty to ensure that their children are properly looked after, in the same way as they teach their children to keep away from the road and to follow the green cross code. Northern Ireland parents have the extra responsibility of ensuring that their children do not become mixed up in shootings and so run the risk of serious injury.

Mr. John Patten: I have been listening with care to my hon. Friend's observations because I am aware of his Service record. He is dealing with the problem of young people and their appearances on the street. He will be aware of a tragic incident in Londonderry on 24 May when a soldier was killed by petrol devices thrown by children.
In the circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree that the security forces have a difficult task when facing such adverse conditions and use minimum force?

Mr. Thorne: I was coming to that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I deplore the fact that so much IRA activity is carried out behind a mask of women and children. A favourite IRA tactic in a riot is to ensure a sufficient depth of children and women in the front of the crowd to distract the forces. IRA terrorists then throw bombs over the heads of the children and women—that is, when they are not encouraging the children to throw missiles. We should ensure that Northern Ireland parents accept the responsibility for ensuring the safety of their children. If they do not take on that responsibility, they must not be surprised when the worst happens.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned the Loyalist prisoner who has been on hunger strike for 30 days. The media have been low key on the issue. Indeed, until I saw the news on the agency tapes tonight I did not realise that anyone was on hunger strike in Northern Ireland. When a low-key approach is adopted in such cases, there is less chance of those involved achieving their aims. I do not support Loyalist hunger strikers any more than IRA hunger strikers.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that when there was any doubt about an incident the benefit of it was invariably given to the police or security forces. If a person is alleged to have committed an offence under United Kingdom law he is always given the benefit of any doubt and I am not surprised that it is given to the police and security forces who do a difficult job magnificently in terrible circumstances. They are the envy of the world. I can think of no Service personnel anywhere else in the world who could do that job with so little bloodshed.
The security forces have had a difficult time. There were problems with the media in the early days when it was suggested that they were trying to make stories. That period has passed and the reporting of issues is extremely responsible. Of course, in any society there is the occasional rogue elephant. Even the House has experience of that and we should not be surprised if the security forces and the police suffer the same problem. It would be wrong to condemn all the rest because of the way that one or two have behaved.
The security forces have learnt in Northern Ireland some arts and skills that were useful in the recent conflict in the South Atlantic. I was interested to hear one or two men say recently what a refreshing change it was to be fighting an enemy in uniform. Whatever they thought of the forces they were fighting in the South Atlantic, at least those forces did not disguise themselves as civilians and take advantage of that anonymity.
We must accept that the IRA and Loyalist terrorists who conduct cowardly, underhand actions behind respectable fronts are the sole cause of the problems in Northern Ireland. The security forces have a duty to protect themselves to the best of their ability. They do a fantastic job, and I hope that we will give them every encouragement to continue in that way.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said that he had had an easy six months, with only four people being killed in his constituency. I wish that I could say the same, but on

Sunday 28 March, Inspector Duddy of the RUC left his church in Londonderry after a service, got into his car with his two teenage sons and was shot dead before their eyes. On 1 April, two soldiers who were changing batteries in a radio station were ambushed, shot and killed in Londonderry on their way back to their base. On Tuesday 27 April, Lieutenant Hamilton of the UDR, a bread server, was shot and killed by the IRA while he was delivering bread to a supermarket. On 4 May, Constable Caskie and his companions were ambushed by the IRA in the centre of Londonderry. He was killed and the woman constable with him was seriously wounded. On 12 May, Mr. Cunningham, an ex-member of the UDR, was shot through the back of the head and killed while at work tiling a bathroom in Strabane.

Mr. Fitt: By a 15-year-old boy.

Mr. Ross: By, it is alleged, a 15-year-old boy, who has since been arrested and charged but not yet found guilty.
On Monday 24 May, soldiers in an armoured vehicle were petrol-bombed by children. They had to evacuate the vehicle which ran forward, crushed one of the soldiers and killed him. I consider that to be murder although it is marked down in the report as an accident. On 11 June, Detective Constable Reeves, in a follow-up search of a lock-up garage with the Army, which had discovered apparently stolen property, picked up a television set. It exploded and killed him. On 15 June, Mr. Cummings, a member of the UDR, was shot and killed in Strabane. Nine people were killed in 12 weeks and that is far too many.
Although not all those people were killed in my constituency, I hope the House will realise that I also know what the practical effects of terrorism are like. There have been many more such murders.
That is a horrifying record, but, more important than the record, it demonstrates the capability that the IRA still possesses to commit murder almost at will, to do it with extreme efficiency and so far as one can gather, when the murders are carried out by the highly experienced murder gangs, to do it with very little chance of being caught. It is that that I must put in the balance when others call for modification and for a relaxation of the measures that are before the House for renewal.
The IRA tried hard and often in Londonderry last year, but it did not succeed. This year it is succeeding with a terrifying regularity. The devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland was declared unfit at one stage, in 1972 and even before that, to deal with the security situation in Ulster. Since that time responsibility has rested in the House. I wonder whether, if those who were so anxious to remove that power to this House in those days had to do it now, they would be as anxious to go down that road.
A great deal of the terrorist activity in Northern Ireland over the years has happened because there has been a persistent failure to understand the driving, motivating force that keeps the IRA at work. The IRA only keeps at it because its members believe that in the long run they will win. There is a lack of understanding in the House of the IRA mentality.
On 24 March 1972, Captain Orr, the hon. Member who preceded my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in that constituency, said that
the imposition of direct rule against the wishes of the majority can only be described as an act of folly.


The then Prime Minister said that that could not possibly be so because the Government remained convinced that the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted peace and security.
The then Prime Minister went on:
The IRA has demanded an amnesty. That is not Her Majesty's Government's proposal. It demanded the withdrawal of all British troops. That is not Her Majesty's Government's proposal. It demanded the abolition of Stormont. That is not Her Majesty's Government's proposal."—[Official Report, 24 March 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1870.]
However, a year later that third demand of the IRA was met. No member of that terrorist organisation or its supporters will ever be convinced that its demand was not met. They will never be convinced that it was not met at their behest because of the military action that they took. Failure to understand that is failure to understand the mentality of those with whom we are in military conflict.
We are told that these same folk were recently trying to buy anti-aircraft missiles in the United States. Newspaper reports tell us that they had $1 million to spend. It is clear that there is no shortage of money. That is a terrifying prospect. What do they want missiles for? Does anyone imagine that this organisation would use them only against helicopters? I do not. I believe that it would be prepared to go for much more spectacular and terrifying deeds.
What further actions and what further methods of operation is the IRA contemplating that have not yet come to light? We have read press reports that were issued by the Israeli Government that IRA members were found in the Lebanon. When the Government spokesman replies to the debate, I hope that we shall be told whether the Government have yet had confirmation of that claim. If they have, the Northern Ireland people should be told.
We have seen a return to the car bomb, which can mean only that the IRA has a great deal more explosive and explosive devices than it has had for many years. Questions must be asked, because one of the great enemies of the IRA is truth and an understanding of its intentions as well as its capabilities. Far too often the ordinary men and women of Northern Ireland have been left in the dark when clear warnings of IRA intentions could have been given. It is clear that this organisation is still capable of much evil. It is clear also that when it reorganised in 1977–78 in response to the increasing security force action at that time there was a decrease in the total number of adult deaths.
In the years 1972 to 1976 the average number of deaths each year due to terrorist action was slightly less than 300. In 1977 it fell to 132. Since then it has been over 100 on only one occasion, which was in 1979. The average since 1977 has been 96 or 97. That shows that the IRA is operating at a certain level of activity. Over the past five years the number of civilian deaths has been about 50 every year, which is just short of one a week.
There must be a reason for the great drop in fatalities. I accept, of course, that in the earlier stages they were not all caused by IRA activity. However, there has been a great change from one level of death and destruction to another. There must be a reason for that. This must mean that the present security policy is capable only of keeping the level of deaths at about 100 a year, give or take 10 or

15. That is just not good enough. There should be another security policy and an effort to drive that death rate much lower until it disappears completely.
These powers are necessary. It is also necessary to have political action that will convince the IRA that Ulster is British and that the House means to keep it British. Because the Labour Party's spokesman only yesterday said that it was not willing to work for the unity of the Kingdom, he and his party have done much to encourage the IRA to believe that its objective will succeed. A great part of any military battle is the belief that one will win—the belief not only in the moral rightness of one's cause but that one can, and will, win.
The fact that a major party in the United Kingdom says through its spokesman in the House that it will not work solidly and continuously for the maintenance of the Union means that the IRA believes that there is a possibility that that party will surrender at some point to its demands.
There is also the dangerous assumption that has been followed assiduously throughout the years, that one can buy off Republicanism with a job in a devolved structure in Northern Ireland. Those people cannot be bought off. One cannot buy off Charlie Haughey or Dublin. Those people are all after a united Ireland. They are all prepared to twist and turn, but they work continuously towards that end. They will not be bought off by jobs. The idea that giving a job to the political Republicans will buy off the gunman Republicans is utter nonsense. It has never been possible to do so.
I live in a Republican village. I know men and women who are now on the run. I know men who killed and who are in prison. I know what they think of those politicians on the Catholic side of the fence. They say to me in private "Willie, they betrayed us."
Of all hon. Members I am the one on the Unionist side of the fence closest to the Republican community, as I have lived in it all my life. I know the people and their attitude. I know the depth of their commitment to Republicanism and the violence that they have perpetuated down the years. I am under no illusions about their intentions anymore than they are under any illusions about my objectives for the future of Northern Ireland.
That is why I come back to the word that was used by the Under-Secretary of State in a bit of chit-chat across the Floor of the House with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South. He used the word "acquiescence". That word has not been given enough attention. It is not necessary to give people a job or to make them love one. It is only necessary at the end of the day to make them acquiesce in the structure, the government and the future of the country.
There are many in the Creggan, Gobnascale and in West Belfast who acquiesce to the presence of the IRA. They give the IRA money and hiding places. However, that does not necessarily mean that they all love the IRA. It does not mean that they all willingly welcome and support the IRA. It means that they acquiesce and help, because they can do no better. They can do no better because the House has failed them more thoroughly and regularly than it has failed the Protestant community. The Roman Catholic community are the people who have the IRA on their backs. That is plain to anyone who goes into the areas, looks at those people and listens to what they have to say.
The Government have a duty to impose their authority and the rule of law to bring peace and normal justice to


the areas. The population cannot be expected to throw off the IRA. One does not argue with a gunman at the door in the Creggan; one does as one is told in West Belfast and many other places. The only ways that the gunman can be defeated are if he is driven out, put in prison or killed. Only by doing that will we convince the people who support him and are prepared to join in his evil activities that we intend to win and will beat the gunman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh mentioned the right of silence. There is also the question of guns that are used in murders—IRA guns that travel from one part of the Province to another to be used in murders in Armagh, Belfast, Londonderry or Strabane. They are doubtless used by different people. Should not the carriage of such guns be treated as a serious offence, perhaps attracting a life sentence? The person who transports the gun is part of the murdering organisation and is co-operating in the murders that the gun is used for. That issue should be more deeply explored. My previous requests have been turned down.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) spent time on the question of plastic bullets. They are used freely, but their use is necessary. If they were not used a lot more soldiers might be burnt to death by petrol bombs and a lot more lethal weapons might have to be used. In May 1981 we were in the middle of the hullabaloo about the IRA hunger strikers. Few can name them today. That is the measure of their failure. They are not the martyrs and are not written in everyone's heart in the way that they expected.
The plastic bullet is vital for the security forces in Northern Ireland. It must be retained and used as freely as the men on the ground facing the rioter and petrol bomber feel necessary. False restrictions should not be put on its use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh also mentioned the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron), as I suppose we must call him. That person complained about the political bishops and constitutional politicians and asked where they were hiding. By being harsh on the constitutional politicians he displayed his utter contempt for the whole concept of democracy. When he was arrested in the United States he complained that he had no income other than social security benefits. Is a man elected to the House, entitled to the salary and the other perks that we have, not drawing his salary?

Mr. Stallard: No, he is not.

Mr. Ross: Is he then entitled to social security benefits? That is strange. I hope that we can be told what the position is.
We are debating in the normal six-monthly way the Emergency Provisions Act. I support the Act, although not willingly. It is an Act which is necessary for the welfare and the defence of the people of Northern Ireland. It is an Act which must be kept—and strengthened—in order finally to destroy the IRA and all its activities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I fully endorse all the comments that have been made by hon. Members, and by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), from all parts of the House expressing our admiration and our gratitude for the

efforts of the members of the security forces in Northern Ireland. I hope that everyone in the House will support their efforts.
It is understandable that those of us living on this side of the water tend to think in particular about the soldiers from England, Scotland and Wales who go over the water to Northern Ireland in order to help maintain the peace there. But it is incumbent on us in this House tonight to think about the particular role of the security forces within the Province—those who were born and bred there and who will go on living there.
It is no invidious comparison to record a special tribute to those members of the security forces—they are a clear numerical majority—who come from Northern Ireland. In all likelihood they will live there for the rest of their lives, with their families, and it is with their families that now—and perhaps well into the future—they continue to be subjected to the threat of murderous and cowardly attack by barbarous terrorists. It is to them that we owe a great deal.
I would say, however, to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), who is not in his usual place in the Chamber at the moment, that I fully understand his point about the monotonous litany of murder, terror, bombing and maiming. How could anyone fail to understand it? At the same time, I would not want him to think that there are not people on this side of the water who, through their sons, daughters or relations, have experienced, at least in some small part, that greater scale of terror with which he is all too familiar. I have within recent months been behind the coffin of a young rifleman from my constituency who served the United Kingdom and paid the ultimate price in Northern Ireland.
We have properly heard something about the restraint that the security forces show in undertaking their duties in the Province. Those who criticise the use of force by the security forces in the Province, and who feel that too much force is used, must remember the very great restraint that they have to show day by day. Sometimes, on the other hand, there is an element of criticism in the comments of some hon. Members who suggest that we are not letting the people who are in charge of security policy take the gloves off and get on with the job. I have heard those comments repeatedly in these and similar debates. To those who feel that taking off the gloves would suddenly make the difficult job of the security forces less difficult and less dangerous, I say that it might make it more difficult and more dangerous.
It is very important for the House to realise that the security force commanders in the Province—the GOC and the Chief Constable—have available all the resources that they need and are able to have a free hand, within the law, to take any action that they feel is necessary, and to take whatever operational decisions seem to them most likely to be effective. But, sadly, the history of mistrust between the communities in Northern Ireland—I need not elaborate on that history—is such that there clearly is a mistrust, on the part of some sections of the community, of the forces of law and order.
I do not believe that we shall eliminate terrorism until we isolate it totally from the community which it purports or pretends to serve.
Sometimes the terrorists try to portray themselves as the protectors and servants of certain sections of the community. What a sick joke that is. What a ghastly Gothic fantasy. Tell that to the 24 nurses who were injured


in Belfast by flying glass and debris within the last fortnight, by a bomb that was aimed, not at a particular target, but indiscriminately to maim, kill and injure. The fantasy of those evil, wicked and perverted minds, who suggest that somehow they are serving the interests of the community, deserves to be revealed for what it is, time and again. None of us should miss the opportunity, in this House or in any part of the United Kingdom, to reiterate that and drive the lesson home. It is as true in Armagh as it is in Aldershot.
It is a matter of great regret for all right hon. and hon. Members—most right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have voiced that regret—that the terrorists have achieved such success in their efforts in the past as to undermine the institutions of democracy and the rule of law, to a certain extent, as the right hon. Member for Crosby said. It has been a sad necessity, shared by the last Administration, the Administration before that, and this Administration, that in the face of such intimidation it has been necessary to adopt exceptional measures. Those exceptional measures were properly taken. They modify but do not completely abandon our normal standards and procedures for the conduct of criminal justice in this country. However, sometimes it seems to be forgotten by critics, especially by critics from abroad, as the right hon. Lady said, that many of the traditional safeguards of British justice remain in the Diplock courts.
I shall remind the House of those safeguards. First, strict rules of evidence apply. Secondly, the accused hears all the evidence. Thirdly, the accused is represented by counsel and may challenge the evidence in open court. The right of appeal of any person convicted in a Diplock court is unfettered on points of fact, as well as on points of law. The right of appeal is not restricted as it would be on this side of the water, had the case been tried before a jury court. All in all, many of the traditional safeguards of British justice, English law, are maintained within the framework of the Diplock courts. Those who want changes in the law serve their case ill if they choose not to remember those facts.
Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend, myself and the Government realise that other provisions in the Act incorporate exceptions from our normal procedures. That is why my right hon. Friend said that these procedures are to be reviewed. There is no doubt that, whatever the results of the review, it will not lead to the complete abolition of those courts in the near future, or the total riddance from the legal landscape of Northern Ireland of emergency provisions and special provisions. I doubt whether any right hon. Member or hon. Member, even the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who put his case so lucidly, believes that it would be possible to wipe away overnight all the special provisions that exist. But it is clear that the existing provisions may need to be adapted. They may need amendment. They may need development and change to take account of changing circumstances. It would be appropriate, my right hon. Friend feels, for the Government to have independent advice before deciding what changes need to be made.

Mr. Freeson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that whatever else such a review may undertake or produce, it

will not be open for it to recommend, if it so decided, that the Act should be withdrawn? That is the import of what the hon. Gentleman has stated.

Mr. Patten: I apologise for not being present when the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) made his contribution to the debate. This is an independent inquiry. Any independent inquiry can make any recommendations to the Government that it sees fit. It is then for the Government and the House to decide whether to adopt the recommendation. I was speculating that I thought it extremely unlikely, should the inquiry come forward in six, nine or 12 months' time with recommendations, that any of us could suspect that the security situation in the Province could be at such a pitch that we could get rid of all emergency provisions.
All hon. Members want the Act to be as effective as possible for its two entirely but internally consistent purposes. We want the Act to bring offenders to trial so that they get the appropriate sentence. The second purpose is, at the same time, to maintain confidence throughout the whole community that the processes involved are fair and the sentences deserved. There is a duality of purpose in the Act as at present drafted.
Freedom for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland can be achieved only if ordinary people respect the safeguards that the law provides.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Offences against the State Act, the special courts and so on, in the Republic of Ireland receive the same scrutiny and review as our legislation receives in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Patten: I am ashamed to say that I cannot answer specifically. I do not know what reviews, if any, are presently going on in the Parliament of another country. I know that there are also special regulations south of the border.
My right hon. Friend's suggestion that there should be an independent and free-standing inquiry has received a wide welcome from both sides of the House, from the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), speaking for the Opposition, from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) who, I am pleased to see, has made a great recovery and whose further contributions I look forward to hearing, and from the right hon. Member for Crosby. It has not been so welcomed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. We have to relate the timing of the inquiry, the establishment of the review and its schedule of work to the progress of Lord Jellicoe's review on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That seems to us sensible. I know that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, does not agree. The two reviews are related. The Emergency Provisions Act review will have, of necessity, to take account of the reasoning behind, and the conclusions drawn by Lord Jellicoe's review. I can give the hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends who share similar doubts an assurance that we shall press ahead as quickly as possible in the light of these considerations.
I am unable to anticipate my right hon. Friend's announcement about the terms of reference and the form of the review. The right hon. Member for Mansfield will not be disappointed on either count when my right hon. Friend makes his announcement in the not too distant future. Some emergency legislation is likely to remain


necessary. That may be a starting point of the review. I equally expect that the terms of reference will provide [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has just arrived. Does he wish to make a substantial point?

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my hon. Friend allow me to make a point?

Mr. Patten: Perhaps I may finish this sentence. I was intending to return to my hon. Friend. I know how impatient he is. I have seen that expression on his face often recently. I always try to give way to him as quickly as possible. I expect the terms of reference to provide for as wide-ranging a review as that which the noble Lord Gardiner conducted. My right hon. Friend will aim to appoint about four members of a similar calibre.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to make a point. When he mentions the appropriate sentences being awarded by the Diplock courts, perhaps he will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said about IRA criminals who, having been sentenced to between six and 10 years' imprisonment, come out after between three and five years after 50 per cent. remission and are able to continue their murderous activities. Will the review be able to consider a variation of sentencing policies and to include a recommendation that anyone who is convicted for a scheduled offence should be sentenced, not to a determinate sentence, but to imprisonment for as long as the emergency shall last? Does he agree that that would be an incentive, if not to the individuals concerned, to their relatives to hasten on the end of the emergency so that the prisoners may be released?

Mr. Patten: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's suggestions. As I have just said, the terms of reference have not been set. My hon. Friend made an interesting set of suggestions. May I reassure him on two points. First, no one who is convicted of murder gets 50 per cent. remission. Secondly, as most hon. Members know, that 50 per cent. remission must be earned. Moreover, when convicted terrorists are released they are on licence and may be recalled at any time if they are caught or suspected of being in the commission of crime.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield asked about powers of arrest under section 11. He asked one of those questions that is easy to ask and extremely difficult to answer. The committee of inquiry should address itself to that problem. There is no doubt about that.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield also asked whether it would be possible to de-schedule certain offences—offences that in his mind or that of other right hon. and hon. Members may no longer be regarded as necessarily of a terrorist type and can therefore be dropped. I remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General can already de-schedule an offence if he is satisfied that it is not a terrorist one and that the threat of intimidation of jury and witnesses is considered not to exist. That is a fail-safe provision. If we chose to remove particular offences from the schedule, it would automatically follow that there would be no option of trial in a Diplock court. That is a problem that the review will have to face with some care in its deliberations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked earlier about the Government's

opinion of the level of co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda. Certainly, such co-operation is of very great importance. We believe that the two police forces north and south of the border which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, is so difficult to police, have established a high level of professional and close working relationships. Those relationships continue to produce a substantial number of arrests and finds of arms and ammunition on both sides of the border. A recent example was the finding by the Garda in Dundalk on 3 June of a substantial car bomb factory and related armaments.
Equally, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that the Government are in no doubt that we need to continue to develop our relationships with the Irish Government in terms of dealing with fugitive terrorist offenders. In the absence of an extradition at the moment, we must look to extraterritorial legislation which permits offenders to be prosecuted in one jurisdiction, as they have been recently, for offences committed in another. I am pleased to report that there are very encouraging signs that this is becoming much more effective than it has been in the past. Again, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the example of the six recaptured Belfast prison escapees who were convicted in Dublin by a court outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of offences connected with their escape and subsequently received 10-year prison sentences.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is in close touch with his Irish opposite number about resuming discussions on the very important way forward that must be followed in suppressing terrorism both north and south of the border.
Lastly, I come to the troubled subject of plastic baton rounds which was raised by the right hon. Member for Brent, East and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has lived in the eye of the storm in that tragic part of the city for so many years and whose fortitude under continuous and merciless attack and provocation on him and his family has shone out like a beacon in that troubled part of Belfast.
I am happy to report that figures for the use of plastic baton rounds in recent months show a downward trend. In March 1982, 40 plastic baton rounds were expended by the security forces in the Province. In April 1982, 30 rounds were expended, and in May 1982—the most up-to-date figure that I have—28 rounds were expended.
The use of an adequate level of force is a terrible dilemma for the security forces. Is it to be plastic or is it to be lead? Is it to be a high level of force or is it to be minimum force? I cited earlier the example of the young soldier killed in Londonderry by a child who threw a petrol bomb. The dilemma that continually faces the security forces in Northern Ireland cannot easily be solved by saying "Let us get rid of this or that form of arms".
These issues concerning the special provisions made in the Province to face up to terrorism under the emergency provisions legislation need to be closely examined by the review committee that is to be set up. Equally, in the meantime, I assure every hon. Member that the security forces will maintain their fight against terrorism in every part of the Province and they will not be deflected from that in the intervening months between now and when the review committee reports.
I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 19.

Division No. 254]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Hannam, John


Arnold, Tom
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Aspinwall, Jack
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Blackburn, John
Kilfedder, James A.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lang, Ian


Bright, Graham
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brinton, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Lyell, Nicholas


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
McCrindle, Robert


Buck, Antony
McCusker, H.


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Major, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Marlow, Antony


Cope, John
Mather, Carol


Costain, Sir Albert
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Mayhew, Patrick


Dover, Denshore
Mellor, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Eggar, Tim
Moate, Roger


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Molyneaux, James


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Murphy, Christopher


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Myles, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Neale, Gerrard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Needham, Richard


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Neubert, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Newton, Tony


Greenway, Harry
Normanton, Tom


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Onslow, Cranley


Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Patten, John (Oxford)





Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Penhaligon, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Sproat, Iain


Prior, Rt Hon James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Proctor, K. Harvey
Stanley, John


Renton, Tim
Stevens, Martin


Rhodes James, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Donald


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Watson, John


Roper, John
Wells, Bowen


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Hugh
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wickenden, Keith


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Silvester, Fred
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Skeet, T. H. H.



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Speller, Tony
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


NOES


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Mikardo, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Parry, Robert


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Richardson, Jo


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dubs, Alfred
Wigley, Dafydd


Fitt, Gerard



Flannery, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mr. Reg Race and


Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Mr. John Tilley.


Lamond, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
The order extends the period of direct rule by 12 months until July 1983. It is the eighth such successive order, though this year it is presented to the House in circumstances which are rather different from usual. I shall not take the House through all the circumstances that make the presentation of the order different from usual because they were debated at length during the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Bill. Suffice it to say that it remains necessary to renew the direct rule provisions that provide that legislation that could have been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly can instead be passed at Westminster by Order in Council, and that the executive responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Administration should be exercised by the Secretary of State.
We have debated at length the circumstances in which any new Assembly for Northern Ireland, should the Bill come into operation, would be able to take back powers from this House. My hon. Friends will be glad to hear that. I shall not go into that tonight.
I commend the order to the House. The Government recognise both the strengths and the weaknesses of direct rule. Over the years it has secured a measure of acceptance in both parts of the community. Its impartiality is generally recognised and it has enabled the Northern Ireland Departments to discharge their duties efficiently. On the other hand, it has procedural and legislative inadequacies. But its main weakness is a political one—it does not meet the exceptional political needs of Northern Ireland. That is why the Northern Ireland Bill represents a positive and constructive attempt to respond to those needs.
If elected representatives in Northern Ireland can reach agreement on arrangements either for partial or full devolution acceptable to both sides of the community, the machinery of direct rule can, at the proper moment, whenever that might be, be brought to an end in respect of some or all Northern Ireland Departments.
Meanwhile, it is self-evident that the Government should seek to renew direct rule, even if, as I hope, the Bill is soon on the statute book. While the House and Ministers of this Government are responsible for the administration and legislation of Northern Ireland, I can assure Northern Ireland that we shall continue to exercise that responsibility with the vigour and respect that we owe to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not delay the House for long and the Opposition will not divide the House on the order.
We regard it as inevitable that direct rule from Westminster will have to continue for the time being. When it was introduced it was never intended to be permanent and many in the House, not least the Secretary of State, know far better than I of the numerous attempts that have been made to end it.
It is significant that various opinion polls taken in Northern Ireland demonstrate fairly clearly that direct rule

is most people's second-best option. It has been greeted with a degree of acceptance, though various people would give priority to their first-choice options.
It is also clear that direct rule has helped with civil rights. Many improvements made in that area, by both Labour and Conservative Governments, have been to the advantage of the population in general. Some civil rights matters still need to be dealt with and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to do that fairly soon.
There are areas where direct rule could be improved, particularly as regards the unelected area boards for education, planning, social services and so on. We could give some thought to elected representatives and perhaps trade unionists serving on the boards with some o f the existing councillors.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman has made a remarkable and important observation on behalf of the Labour Party. Will he clarify it, because it concerns a matter to which many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland seats have given considerable thought?
When the hon. Gentleman refers to elected representation on health and education boards, does he mean elected persons belonging to other bodies, such as district councils, being seconded or appointed to the boards or does he have in mind the possibility of a system of at least partial direct election to the boards? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the significance of the matter and perhaps he will clarify his remarks.

Mr. Soley: I am always anxious to clarify matters for the right hon. Gentleman. It is good that he is not pursuing yet another plot or ploy. I welcome that.
The sort of thing that we are thinking of is that each area board could—I give this as an example—be made up of one-third Government appointees, one-third district councillors and perhaps councillors elected from those in the area, and one-third trade unionists elected through trade union machinery. There are other possibilities and structures that could be considered in that way. There should be none of the nightmares or panic stations that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce into the debate.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification, as far as it goes. He was speaking very fast and his words degenerated at one point, if I may say so, into a gabble. If I did not hear exactly what he said, perhaps he will forgive me for the lapse. He appeared to refer to an election from among elected representatives. Is he thinking of an election on top of an election, which would mean that persons would be elected to a district council and that then an election involving a group of such persons would be held to select those who would in part man the boards? I am sure that my hon. Friends will be as grateful as I am to know that the Labour Party is giving some thought to the democratising of the boards, which are badly in need of it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not begrudge us a little more clarification of the electoral processes that he has in mind.

Mr. Soley: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I shall repeat it for him. Before doing so, may I say that I agree with him that there is a need to democratise the boar s? That is an area of agreement and I welcome it. I said that each area board could, for example, be made up of one-third Government appointees,


one-third district councillors elected from councils within the area and one-third trade unionists elected, perhaps, through their own trade union procedures. That is one possible model. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understood that. If he did not, I suggest that he reads the official record in the morning.

Mr. Powell: I shall not be able to do that. I shall have to wait until Friday morning.

Mr. Soley: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise it with me again, he can do so.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: In answering the question of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the hon. Gentleman appeared to be quoting verbatim from a document. It might be useful to know the source of the quotation so that we can read it ourselves.

Mr. Soley: I was not quoting verbatim, but it was close to it. If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place for the previous debate—I do not criticise him for his absence as I know that he is frequently involved in Northern Ireland debates—he would realise that I have the Labour Party's policy statement in front of me.
I was glad when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) agreed that the area boards could be democratised because that is an essential part of the passage that I was summarising. If right hon. and hon. Members wish to have a copy of the policy statement, they will be able to obtain copies from the Labour Party's headquarters at a reasonable price. I recommend it as good reading. A great deal of work went into it by many committed people over a long period. If it had been given considerable attention and careful reading, it might have contributed to our recent debates on the Northern Ireland Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and I referred to it in those debates.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I believe that there should be a greater degree of democracy within the area boards. I am, however, confused by the hotch-potch that is set out in what the hon. Gentleman calls the Labour Party's policy document. How does it come anywhere near close to being democratisation of the area boards? It seems that it would be as bad a system as the present system of appointments made by the Secretary of State and his Ministers.

Mr. Soley: I do not think that it would be as bad. It is a question of degree. We know that we shall not have a perfect democratic system in the short run. The hon. Gentleman and other members of the Unionist parties are among the last who should give lectures on this subject. If the hon. Gentleman reads the document, he will understand that it is one possible structure.
The important part of the aims of direct rule legislation is to bring together some of the attempts to link the communities in Northern Ireland. That is an important part of our policy. As our medium-term goal we must try to reach an understanding with the political leaders in Northern Ireland on the need for closer political co-operation between the parties. If we could achieve that either under direct rule or, as we hope, through the Secretary of State's Bill, we will be making significant progress, and we should all welcome that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We in Northern Ireland have had direct rule for a considerable time. I make no apology for bringing the House back to consideration of the most important thing for any individual—the right to live. We have heard many criticisms in the House of what happened when Stormont was in existence, when Ulster's special constabulary held the border and protected the whole community, and when there was calm and peace in Northern Ireland.
The House needs to be reminded that in some days of direct rule more people have been murdered than in years under the Stormont Administration. The House needs to be reminded that in some hours under direct rule there have been more murders than in all the years of the Stormont Administration. Tonight, I thought that at long last we would hear from the Government Front Bench a firm and determined challenge to the present upsurge of IRA activity or any other terrorist activity whether it be from the so-called Loyalist community or the Roman Catholic or Protestant communities. I was saddened to think that tonight, from this House, the IRA was given a message from the Government Front Bench that the gloves would not be taken off and that action would not be taken to deal with the situation.
The people of Ulster are near to breaking point. Sections of a community cannot be mutilated and murdered without a breaking point being reached. The breaking point has almost been reached. We have had some sad and terrible happenings in Northern Ireland during the past few days. At the beginning of one week a police officer was blown up. That was followed by the shooting of a UDR soldier and the setting up in a Belfast street of a rocket launcher and an attack on a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station. An ex-officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a Roman Catholic, was murdered and a UDR officer had his legs blown off. All that happened in one week of activity. Surely the time has come when the gloves have to be taken off, and what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said must be faced up to, that the Republicans with the guns in their hands cannot and will not be appeased.
Many hon. Members talk about Southern Ireland, but they should read the history of the Irish Republic. If they did so they would find that when the Government were set up in Southern Ireland events similar to those in Northern Ireland at the moment were taking place. The irregulars led by De Valera were out to destroy the Government that had been elected. There then came to office a man by the name of Kevin O'Higgins. He realised that the only way to put down such a problem was to do so ruthlessly. There was no saying "Let us win the community from its allegiance to these people", because it had already been admitted by those who held that view that the community had no allegiance to those people. After all the bombings and killings, the people in Northern Ireland are told continually that they should outlaw the terrorists. The community cannot outlaw. Only the force of the Crown and the security forces can outlaw them.
There was a struggle in the South, which was successful. When the men of violence realised that they could not succeed, De Valera was prepared to go into politics rather than carry on that military war.
The House should remember that one of the terrible pages in Southern Ireland's history was the civil war, when


the people fought one another and when the irregulars were doing what the IRA are doing in Northern Ireland now. The Government now must face up to this situation. Will they take on the Irish Republican Army and defeat it? The IRA must be defeated. There is no other way in which we shall have peace.
During the past months there was an event that was not headlined in the press. Three police vehicles moved into a farmstead on the border of Fermanagh. Into those vehicles a husband, wife and their family climbed. The police vehicles took those people to the ferry. They left Northern Ireland, probably for ever, to settle in Canada.
Why was that family, who had lived in Northern Ireland from the plantation days, driven from its home? Simply because, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, their allegiance was to the British Crown and to maintaining the Union between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That family was driven out because all round them man after man, farmer after farmer was murdered. I sat in one of those homes with a group of men, who said that the next time I came to Fermanagh, I would be attending one of their funerals. I attended funerals of three of the men in that group. That is what happened and is happening.
We were told by the police, rightly so, that they could not defend us. What do people do then? The hon. Member for Armagh said that he found it difficult to speak to his constituents. If hon. Members' constituents said to them that they were in danger and that they had gone to the police, who said that they could not protect them, what would they advise those people to do? There is only one thing that they can do—defend themselves. That is what is happening and has to happen along the border. That is why, when a farmer is sowing his crops, his wife stands with his double-barrelled shotgun protecting him as he goes about his daily work. That is happening not somewhere outside the United Kingdom, but inside it.
We need to come down hard to the realities. Let no hon. Member think that there will not be serious killings and bombings in Northern Ireland. We had an example this past week. The bomb, which probably was one of about 1,000 lb, would have devastated the heart of Belfast. It devastated part of West Belfast because the security forces could not detonate it. Such bombings will continue. Business people who have never before been visited by the police have now been told that they, too, are in danger. That is what is happening under direct rule.
The IRA has taken off its gloves to the people of Northern Ireland. It does not obey a code of ethics in its bombing and killing. Members of the IRA kill people even when they are with their wife or child. They care not. But we are told that we should not take off our gloves to the IRA. The Government have a duty to face the challenge of the IRA, and anyone else who wishes to kill, with the resoluteness manifested by them in the Falkland Islands dispute. In Northern Ireland we live daily with death.
It has been said that the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone were disfranchised. They did that when the majority of them voted for their present representation. Although the representative does not come to the House, he gets special privileges on the roads of Fermanagh. A UDR detachment recently stopped his car and wished to search it. He told them that they could not search it as he was the Member of Parliament for the area. They held the car until the police came. The police officer apologised to

him and told the UDR to let the car go and not to stop it in future. Such situations on the border bring security into contempt.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Armagh telling us that the Secretary of State had met a deputation of relatives of murdered people whom he brought along. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and me the same consideration for a case that we have before him. He is duty-bound to hear people whose friends and relatives have been murdered and who wish to make representations to him. He cannot hear everyone, but having heard the people from Armagh he should hear the people from County Tyrone
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) produced one document. A similar document was given to another man under threat. I did not hear a comment from the Government. The man's life is at risk and he is told officially to keep a dog that barks. When a man's life is in danger and the security forces cannot give him protection and he applies for a weapon to protect himself, that is denied. The authorities dilly-dallied over giving another young man personal protection, and we followed his funeral cortege to the grave. There are serious matters which the House and the Government must consider. I trust that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate he will tell us that there will be resoluteness in the fight against terrorism.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is not with us at the moment, said that the RUC was ordered to fire blanks in a certain situation lest there should be some sort of reaction. Since the European Parliament passed a resolution on the use of plastic bullets, they have not been used in Northern Ireland. Has an order been given to the RUC that because of world opinion those bullets are not to be used.?
If the plastic bullets had not been available at the time of the hunger strikes, there would have been a terrible situation. As the police have said very strongly to me, without those weapons with which to defend themselves they would be an easy prey to the petrol bombers. I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State wil tell us what orders are being given to the police in this respect.
I notice that we have not had any reply concerning the weapons which should have come from the United States of America.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): May I take this opportunity, at the invitation of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), to deal with that point? There was not time to deal with it at the end of the previous debate. It is perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government regret that the United States Government, for reasons of their own, felt unable to supply the further arms which had been ordered for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I assure the hon. Member, as I have assured the House on more than one occasion recently at Question Time, that the RUC is adequately armed and has all the guns for which the Chief Constable has asked.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We hear the President of the United States telling the world that he is dedicated to liberty and freedom, but when I took a strong stand on the issue I suffered by having my visa cancelled by the United States authorities. That was because I campaigned strongly that


no more money should come from the United States of America for the terrorists. We have the President coming over here to tell us that he is the champion of freedom, yet the very arms that would be helpful in putting down terrorism have been refused by his Government. I wonder how strong the representations made by the British Government to the United States Government have been about those arms.

Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Member noticed that on several occasions I have asked the Government why, if the RUC is adequately armed, the order for the remainder of the arms still stands? Why has that order not been cancelled if the weapons are not needed?

Rev. Ian Paisley: My information is that the weapons are needed. It was a necessary consignment, and when the first allocation of the weapons arrived, training on them started. If further supplies of weapons have been refused by the United States Government, have the spare parts that are necessary for the maintenance of the weapons that were delivered been received? The first consignment of weapons will be useless if they cannot be maintained, and if the spares for them are not made available. The Government should come absolutely clean with the people of Northern Ireland on this issue.

Mr. John Patten: I am delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to "come absolutely clean". I reiterate that the RUC is adequately armed, that all requests from the RUC for arms have been met, and that suitable sources of supply of alternative arms have been found for the RUC. But, quite properly, these are not matters which traditionally been discussed in any detail in this Chamber, because any such discussion could aid the terrorists. I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should discuss in detail the arming of the RUC.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is an amazing statement, because the authorities made the statement about the arms being ordered. They made the statement, and they said that the arms were denied. Now the Minister tells me that I should not ask him about the tragic failure of a friendly nation to supply arms to put down terrorism, because it might give the terrorists some information. Everyone knows that the RUC did not get the arms.
I notice that the Minister did not come clean about the parts. The parts have not been obtained. I have inside information on the matter, as have other hon. Members who have been told by the police about their needs.
If the RUC has all the arms that it needs, why were the arms ordered? Why was there a fuss about their cancellation? The time has come when we must discover the truth. Not only should the RUC have arms, but it should be permitted to use them.
I trust that the Secretary of State will take on board the plea that has been made tonight to him by Northern Ireland Members. He spends quite a lot of time in the Province. No doubt, he has learnt that those of us who live there and mix among the people of Northern Ireland and live with these matters daily, realise just how hard pressed those people are.
What can we say of the coming weeks? Will there be a massive campaign of bombing? Probably there will. Will

the people who have been warned by the police that they are in danger of being murdered be murdered? Is there not a case for the Government to say "We do not need some reactionary security measures to deal with the resurgence of the IRA. We need a new policy"? The present policy has not succeeded. The terrorists are still with us. The murders continue. When any of us go to the telephone to ring home, the first thing that we say to our loved ones is "What is the situation? Has anyone been murdered? Have any more bombs gone off?" That is what we have to live with, and that is only a reflection of what the ordinary people of Northern Ireland have to live with. They have massive trouble in employment, housing, health and social services, and so on, but piled on top of that is their desire to live.
I make a plea to the Government to take off the gloves, and let the IRA know that they are determined to put it down. Until that determination is seen, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) rightly said, we cannot convince those sections of the community that are under the threat of the gunmen. The IRA collects 50p from old-age pensioners in those areas. The IRA knows the income of all the houses. As the hon. Gentleman said, when someone appears at the door with a gun, one does not argue. One does what one is told.
That is the situation in Ulster. It is a terrifying and tragic situation. I trust that tonight we shall hear something from the Government. As I said in the closing debate on the Assembly, let no one think that the setting up of the Assembly will cure the security ills. Let no one think that it will even cure the economic ills. I plead with the Government to consider the agonised cry that comes from the people of Northern Ireland. I trust that we shall see a change in security policy. If there is confidence that all the weapons required are available, a drive should be made against the IRA. The IRA should not be allowed to make a drive against the security forces. Under direct rule, I trust that we shall see a new security policy that will give hope and confidence and create faith in the hearts of the people who live in Northern Ireland, who want to live there and who want to see a good future for their children.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It might have been supposed that in passing from the biannual ritual of the renewal of emergency powers to the hardy perennial of the renewal of the temporary provisions Act we had left the scene of the subject of terrorism in Northern Ireland and what is called security. We have had a necessary reminder that the two cohere. There is no necessary dividing line between the two subjects.
I hope that the Secretary of State was attending to what was stated by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the specific statements made by the hon. Gentleman and that he will correct any impression that the RUC might be under that there is a privilege attached to hon. Members that renders them immune from any examination or procedures thought necessary for the purposes of security. I hope that this will be made clear in case there has been any misunderstanding in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
We are this year discussing the hardy perennial in novel conditions, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out in his brief introduction. We come to the annual renewal of what is called direct rule with the minds of those hon. Members


who have attended recent debates sharpened, instructed and prepared by the consideration of the contents of the unhappy Bill that went to the other place following the decision in the early hours of yesterday morning. We can now look with different eyes on the question of the renewal of the temporary provisions Act. On all previous occasions, when it has been renewed, there was no question but that my hon. Friends and I would support its renewal.
If it failed to be renewed, we would fall through the floor and find ourselves living under the 1973 or Heath Robinson constitution of Northern Ireland. But that is not now the choice. The difference between the 1973 constitution and the Bill, if it ever becomes an Act, that has recently passed through this House, is, in some matters of principle, not very great. The principle of power-sharing, of widespread acceptance throughout the community of the arbitrary decision of a member of the Government, is common to both measures. Although there are portions of the Bill into which that provision is apparently not inscribed, we have a choice between the power-sharing constitution which the Province unmistakably rejected in 1974 and the power-sharing constitution that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to attempt to impose upon it by his new Bill. It is worth, in this changed environment, looking back at what is meant by direct rule as expressed in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which we are invited to renew by this order.
When, in 1973, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was repealed, the legislative and administrative power in Northern Ireland—which had always lain with this House and with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom but whose exercise by the House and the Government had been in certain areas in suspense during the existence of the 1920 Act—reverted in full vigour to where they had always ultimately lain. Legislative authority in Northern Ireland, which had lain here exclusively before 1922 came back to this House and the administrative authority that had been exercised in Northern Ireland by the Government in the United Kingdom and by Ministers of that Government reverted to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom overtly and directly.
It might have been supposed that by the abolition of the home rule Act 1920 in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland had once again become legislatively and administratively in every sense an integral part of the United Kingdom. The temporary provisions Act of 1974 prevented that from happening in each of those two spheres. We ought to be clear exactly how and why it prevented it from happening.
I take the administrative sphere first. All the administrative powers that were exercised by the former Government of Northern Ireland passed into the hands of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. But there was a difference. There was a difference in administrative structure between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom which, by way of the temporary provisions Act, had a specific and undesirable effect. It so happened that just before the Government of Ireland Act 1920 ceased to exist, the Government of Northern Ireland had taken steps to absorb into its own direct powers, powers of administration hitherto exercised by elected local authorities in Northern Ireland. So the administrative powers that reverted to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom included not only the administrative powers that the Government exercised in

the rest of the Kingdom but also those powers that, in the rest of the Kingdom, are exercised by elected local authorities.
That was an unintended consequence of the abolition of the 1920 Act. If the supposed local government reform that was recommended by the 1970 report and was effected in 1971–73 had, by some providence been deferred, under what is called direct rule, under the temporary provisions Act there would still be the local authorities in existence in Northern Ireland exercising their proper functions. I am certain that no Government or Parliament of the United Kingdom would, in the intervening period, have dreamt of withdrawing those powers. Because those powers had been transferred, however—before the end of Stormont—into the hands of the Stormont Administration and Parliament, they therefore fell into the maw of Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament, from which they have not since been disgorged. That, then, is one of the differences between what is called direct rule, the effect of the temporary provisions Act and the regime under which, happily or less happily, the rest of the United Kingdom lives and which it does not describe as living under direct rule.
The other compartment is the legislative compartment. As I mentioned earlier, before 1920 the law in Northern Ireland was made by this House. This House enacted all law for Northern Ireland—there was no other legislative power in existence—and it would have been perfectly possible for that to have revived automatically when the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was repealed.
The 1974 Act was passed in order to prevent that from happening—to prevent the full resumption by this House of the powers of legislation for Northern Ireland which had existed up to 1922. The 1974 Act created a system of legislation by Order in Council and subordinate instrument which was to be used, and has been used, where the subject of legislation was a subject that had been within the legislative competence of the former Parliament of Northern Ireland. Hence, the second and only other factual technical difference between direct rule in Northern Ireland today and the form of government of the rest of the United Kingdom—that in addition to direct legislation by this House, as before 1922, Her Majesty's Government legislate, subject in some cases to the decision of this House, by order or by Order in Council.
Why did the Government in 1974 trouble to do that? Why did they not allow the automatic consequences of the repeal of the 1920 Act to follow—namely, that this House would legislate for Northern Ireland as for any other part of the United Kingdom? I am not sure that they envisaged the inconvenience that they were entailing upon hon. Members—inconveniences of which the present debate happens not to be an example, as in approving this Order in Council tonight we are legislating under a United Kingdom Act. They probably did not foresee the consequences—and many blessings would have been gained if the Chief Whip of the day had been more sharp-sighted and had seen the consequences for his Department of the decision expressed by the 1974 Act—of the decision to continue to legislate separately for Northern Ireland in all those compartments that had been within the competence of the former legislature of Northern Ireland, and to do that by Order in Council.
For very shame, this House did not dare to allow the Secretary of State to legislate without the control of this House. At any rate, therefore, matters that would have


been dealt with by statute in the Parliament of Northern Ireland have been dealt with in this House—or in Committees of this House, but normally in this House—by debating for an hour and a half or so an Order in Council.
I ask again, why was this contortion undergone by the 1974 Act? It was done in order to keep a separate Northern Ireland statute book—that was the technical phrase—so that the series of legislative Acts of the former Parliament of Northern Ireland should continue along the shelf in the same coloured bindings and the same style of production as a subordinate but separate series of statutes with their own separate numeration.
I shall inquire in a moment why that step was taken, but before doing so I want to refer to the major non-technical difference between what we in Northern Ireland call direct rule, under which, by virtue of the 1974 Act we live, and the constitution under which our fellow citizens in the rest of the Kingdom live. Besides the two differences—the unintended one that we do not have local government, at least not to speak of, and the intended one, that we are largely legislated for by order and not by Act of Parliament—there is a political difference not to be found anywhere in statute or mentioned in the 1974 Act but in many ways more important than the other two.
In Northern Ireland the question that since 1920 has dominated, and has continued to dominate since 1972, all other political questions is the Union—to be or not to be—with the United Kingdom. As long as that remains the overriding political difference, there cannot flourish those other and subordinate differences of political opinion and aspirations that are embodied by the political parties in the rest of the kingdom.
That difference has a profound effect on the relationship between subject and Government. The balance between pro and anti-Union in Northern Ireland is not likely to change any more appreciably than the balance between Socialist and anti-Socialist in county Durham or, possibly, the balance between Conservative and non-Conservative in Hampshire. My argument would still be valid even if by some political revolution there might be a Tory Member somewhere in county Durham or a Socialist Member—I think there has been on rare occasions—in Hampshire. Nevertheless, the House takes my point.
Although locally we may realise that we shall be represented by one party or another virtually in perpetuity whether or not we like that party, the rest of the kingdom can say "Never mind, that party of that colour for which I do not vote in county Durham may be forming the Government today, but just you wait for a year or two until the general election comes and we shall see those perishers off and there will be installed in Whitehall a Government resting upon a majority which is to our taste." That is why the inhabitants of most parts of the United Kingdom, where a change in political representation is not foreseeable, do not feel as if they are living under a regime upon which they can exercise no influence. The party structure is a national party structure, common to the whole of Great Britain. Every person, therefore, wherever in Great Britain he lives and votes, is caught up in the party system. Through that party system, he exercises, in so far as in him lies, influence, with all his other fellow citizens, on the Government of this country.
That is not the case in Northern Ireland, dividing as it does on a different issue from that on which the rest of the United Kingdom politically divides, and it is thereby insulated or exiled from the political system that is the party system of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is the third, biggest and most significant difference; the least analysed and most severely felt, difference between the Province and the rest of the kingdom.
Having for the sake of completeness, although it will reappear, recorded that third, significant psychological element in direct rule, let me revert to my question—why the 1974 Act? Why was the 1974 Act passed to preserve separate legislation for Northern Ireland in the absence of a Northern Ireland Parliament? We all know the answer. It is because from the moment that Stormont was suspended in 1972, one Government after another of the United Kingdom professed their intention to restore something like, and something described by the same name as, that which they had suspended, and after 1973, had destroyed.
That is a paradox, and a remarkable fact, which should be seen to be more remarkable than even those of us who were in the thick of the debate of those years perceived it to be. I confess that I never sufficiently rigorously asked myself the question—why do one Government after another, not just a particular Government but a whole series of them, have this in common, in whatever else they differ? They all say that they want Northern Ireland to be governed, not quite as it was between 1922 and 1972, but differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, and under some form of devolution other than administrative devolution—legislative devolution.
That principle is common to them all, and that is the reason why we have tonight before us an order to renew the Act which kept Northern Ireland in that artificial situation.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to accept that Governments in Westminster, when looking at the Government of Northern Ireland have been faced by the political parties in Northern Ireland, each one of which has expressed the ambition to have a devolved Government? Therefore, would it not follow that if the Government were to deny the parties of Northern Ireland the right to have a measure of devolution, the Government of Westminster would be dictating to the Province in a way that the parties in Northern Ireland might resent deeply?

Mr. Powell: It is a most attractive theory that the explanation for this persistent behaviour on the part of Her Majesty's Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom was a desire to fall in with the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, even though when they examined those wishes they would find them to be mutually contradictory, although covered by the same word. The hon. Gentleman has made a try.
I resorted to hypotheses that were almost as far-fetched when I contemplated, during these years, this extraordinary phenomenon of one Government after another doing this paradoxical thing of keeping open the foundation of the very structure that differentiated Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I took part in the debates and voted against the abolition of Stormont in 1972. With hindsight, perhaps it is noteworthy that


Westminster was responding to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, but only of the minority community, and particularly of the Irish Republican Army one of whose objectives was the destruction of Stormont.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps the hon. Member was more clear-sighted than I at the time. Although I voted against the abolition of Stormont, I did so on the ground that I saw no evidence of any thought about what was to replace it, or any logical intention such as we have explored in the Chamber this evening. I was not prepared to destroy one system of government unless I was told what was intended to take its place. That was why I went into the Lobby against it. I do not repent having gone into that Lobby, any more than the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
In recent years the means of arriving at the solution to the conundrum has been placed in our hands. Increasingly, as the events of the last two years have evolved, the motivation has become clear. It has been a motivation which has operated consistently upon all Governments since the Home Office ceased to be the relevant Department for Northern Ireland and since the Foreign Office became the effective Department for Northern Ireland in 1972. The Under-Secretary appears to be a little puzzled by that statement. If he is not, I shall not waste the time of the House by explaining what he already understands. If he is puzzled, he should make an inquiry—I am sure that it can be dealt with in his Department—and he will understand what I meant by my reference to the Foreign Office.

Mr. John Patten: I am not puzzled but a little bemused. I can remember the Prime Minister inviting me to join her Administration as an Under-Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office. I always understood that to be the Department of State responsible for Northern Ireland and administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Powell: In that case, the Under-Secretary could benefit from a little enlightenment. As long as the Home Office was the responsible Department for Northern Ireland, it was primarily Home Office concerns with which the Home Office was bothered—the external relations between Northern Ireland under the 1920 constitution and the rest of the United Kingdom and common matter such as drugs, crime, fugitive offenders and the rest of that ilk. But create a new and separate Department of Government and it becomes a Department which deals with external affairs which at last gets the deciding voice in the affairs of Northern Ireland, by a comparable logic to that which gives the Treasury the deciding voice between the other Government Departments when expenditure is involved.
The Under-Secretary might have been a little puzzled at the fact of which he knows well—that Cabinet decisions concerning the Northern Ireland Bill were taken not by the Home Affairs or Constitutional Committee of the Cabinet but by the Overseas and Defence Committee. It was treated, as it has been treated over the years, as a matter of external affairs in which the dominant Department was, and is necessarily, the Foreign Office.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and to the House for a digression which was intended for the benefit

of the Under-Secretary. As he happens to serve in the subordinate Department, it seemed unfair to deny him at least a gleam of enlightenment.
To abbreviate what might otherwise be an even longer and—who knows?—even more instructive discourse, I should like, in putting forward to the House my solution to the conundrum "Why the 1974 Act and why, therefore, the order?", to revert to the Conservative Party's election policy for Northern Ireland, of which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) reminded us at an early stage in the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill—it seems a long time ago.
The Conservatives said:
A Conservative Government would seek to establish a regional council or councils with control over specifically local matters, which are not at the moment subject to any effective democratic scrutiny as they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The Conservative Party went on:
We do not believe that a more ambitious scheme to devolve executive and legislative power to Northern Ireland would be successful in present conditions. In our view the talk of recreating political stability"—
have we heard that phrase lately?—
should begin fairly modestly with the establishment of a new framework of local government which the Province has lacked during the last few years.
There was what one might have thought was the logical conclusion from the events of 1972—even if we were to continue legislating in a peculiar fashion on Northern Ireland it would at least be rendered administratively homogeneous and we would be given the same administrative democratic opportunities as the rest of the United Kingdom.
It was astonishing that from the moment of entering office the Conservative Government behaved like all the previous Governments since 1972. They threw overboard what they said and started to talk about more ambitious schemes of administrative and legislative devolution.
I am sorry if I am trenching on the time in which we might hope to hear from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). I will bear that in mind as I hasten to my close, because the hon. Member and I have been conducting in recent weeks, if not a duet, at any rate a sort of dialogue of which this debate ought fittingly to be a continuation.
What happened to the Conservatives when they came to Office? Who nobbled them? Who sandbagged them? Who put a bag over the head of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) as soon as he walked into the Northern Ireland Office, snatched away the policy to which the Conservative Party was committed and substituted the same old policy, for the purposes of which the 1974 Act was devised—the same policy, one might say for the sake of brevity, that we find, in a modern edition but still recognisable, in the Northern Ireland Bill?
So there was a more acute problem with which observers such as ourselves were faced in the past three years. There was an intensification of the paradox and the puzzle of the years since 1970. What hit the Conservatives?
By ill luck, it was only in the later stages of our deliberations on the Northern Ireland Bill—the day before yesterday—that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made an important statement. A piece of grit is necessary to produce a pearl and if the pearl produced by the right hon. Gentleman was the result of some gritty, irritating


matter than I had served up to him in the debate, perhaps I should not apologise too abjectly, as he suggested, for having done that.
Having repudiated any suggestion that there were—I hardly dare to quote the words—undertakings given to the Irish Government over the constitutional future of Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State said:
There are no such undertakings at all.
What about the other reason for departing from the policy of the Government, that we would automatically lose the co-operation that we are getting from the Irish Government over border security? The right hon. Gentleman took a different attitude on that. He said:
With regard to the accusation that Mr. Haughey said that he did not like local government reform … I do not need Mr. Haughey to tell me that. The nationalists and a good many others can tell me that, and they have done so.
He continued:
Where a State has a land border with another State, and where we have had so much trouble with security, it is not necessarily wrong to take the views of that other State into consideration when considering the importance of security aspects. We would be extremely negligent if we did not do so. On that point there is no problem."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 788–9.]
On that point, observe that the right hon. Gentleman was not talking about taking the views of that other State on police matters into consideration. He was talking about taking the views of that other State on constitutional matters into consideration. He was saying that when there is a hostile country on the other side of the boundary which is forming the base, and providing the inviolable base for the terrorist attack on Northern Ireland, one has to take the views of that other State into consideration.
Could it be that when the new Government came into office in 1979 those who met them and took them in kindly said "We are sorry to have to tell you, but if you do what was in your manifesto you will not get co-operation on security from the Irish Republic. So, in the interests of security and in order to avoid further outrages such as those which have been recently committed, you had better not engage upon a constitutional course, namely, the candid declaration and establishment of the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. On the contrary, you had better at least appear to be making political progress, which is what the people on the other side of that border are always wanting. You and we both know, don't we, Secretary of State, what they mean by political progress?"

Mr. Prior: rose—

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene to tell me that I am wrong again.

Mr. Prior: I thought that tonight, for once, the right hon. Gentleman might apologise for the remarks he made yesterday.

Mr. Powell: The Secretary of State is not rising to the occasion.

Mr. Prior: If I am not rising to the occasion it is certain that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing of the sort in the past 24 hours.

Mr. Powell: That is mere childishness. The Secretary of State is unwilling to face the fact that there is a major constitutional issue here, which he has never understood. The behaviour of successive United Kingdom

Governments since 1970 calls for an explanation which has never intelligibly been rendered. The right hon. Gentleman never gave an intelligible explanation throughout the proceedings of the Northern Ireland Bill why he and his predecessor departed from the promises to which they were committed when they came into office, and from which it was prophesied they would depart under certain influences and pressures.

Mr. Prior: I do not need to use deceitful arguments that are quite untrue and used to involve others who have no ability to defend themselves.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman and I will be judged by the events. We shall be judged by what will subsequently appear.

Mr. Prior: We shall be judged by what happens.

Mr. Powell: No. We shall be judged also by what will happen. In these past days we have learnt at last why it is that Northern Ireland, by the 1974 Act is to be kept separate, and over again, when the chance occurs, to be forced into formal separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is because Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are being blackmailed by the Irish Republic, which says "Either you show political progress in constitutional matters in the direction that we want or else we shall turn the screw as we have the power to do. We have the power from out territory, inviolable to you, to maintain, intensify and modulate the terrorist attack upon this Province."

Mr. Peter Robinson: There is only one piece that does not fit into the jigsaw. If the conspiracy theory is correct, surely the Republic of Ireland's Government would have been in favour of the Northern Ireland Bill. In fact, they are against it.

Mr. Powell: No, that will not wash. When someone is getting his way he does not say "That is splendid, old chap. Thank you very much." No, he says "You are not doing enough yet. This is not enough. Faster, faster." That is what Haughey is saying to the Government.
When one is faced by a blackmailer, as Her Majesty's Government have been faced by the blackmail of the Irish Republic, backed by the United States, during the past 10 years, there is the choice of giving in to blackmail, which is what the Government did, or of defying the blackmailer, which the Government were told was a course too dangerous to take, and from which they therefore shrank back.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: rose—

Mr. Powell: No. I cannot give way any more. I must conclude now.

Mrs. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has not given way very much.

Mr. Powell: I have given way continuously. I gave way even before the right hon. Lady entered the Chamber.
We are seeing Northern Ireland receiving—it will continue to receive—the consequences of Her Majesty's Government bowing to blackmail, for one never gains safety by attempting to buy off the blackmailer. The only result is that he continues with his blackmail. Look back over the past few years to the series of points at which the screw has been tightened on Her Majesty's Government.
The Government have been pushed forward into further endeavours to force upon the Province inexplicable and unwanted arrangements.
The Secretary of State, more determined than his predecessors, has brought them as far as a Bill, and even that has been pushed through the House. This is the link between constitution and security. As long as the House and as long as British Governments are seen to be legislating and administering for Northern Ireland in such a way as to deny the integral status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom, so long there will be no answer to the terrorist attack upon the Northern Ireland and upon the United Kingdom. The blame lies, ultimately, not even with the Government but with the House, which in the last resort is, or should be, the master of legislation and the master of administration.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall make only one point so that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can reply to the debate.
My point concerns the position of the minority, which has been so much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his complicated plan for rolling devloution. At the beginning of the nineteenth century Catholics of all Ireland were eager for the parliamentary union because that was to free them from rule by what was then truly a Protestant Parliament for the Protestant people. I ask the Secretary of State not to dwell overmuch, as he has in recent debates, on the half century of legislative devolution in Northern Ireland, but to consider the century or more of legislative union, which the Unionists of the day wished to continue at the time of partition. Whether it was Ireland or whether it is Northern Ireland, the rights of the minority are safest under the aegis of this one Parliament here at Westminister. That is the lesson of Stormont.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): In the five minutes that remain unexpended in the debate, I shall address myself closely to the order in a technical and rather pragmatic way. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I fulfil that necessary task in commending the order to the House. Without the order, the government of Northern Ireland would collapse. The £3·6 billion that is being spent in the current year could not be spent there. There could be no public expenditure, which is 35 per cent. more in Northern Ireland than it is on this side of the water. The soldiers and the security forces could not be there. The better government of Northern Ireland could not be carried out by Her Majesty's Government under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Therefore, this is a critically important order for the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland, and government there could not be sustained without it. It is vital to renew direct rule for a further year. I wish to give one or two assurances to the House about what is likely to happen

while direct rule continues before partial or full devolution to a Northern Ireland Assembly takes place should the Northern Ireland Bill pass into law, as I hope it will.
I assure the House that the Government will continue to do all that they can to make direct rule in Northern Ireland as efficient, imaginative and effective as possible. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) will share in that. In his speech he welcomed the fact that direct rule makes it possible for advances to be made, perhaps more quickly than otherwise, in human rights, although I know that he shares the reservations of a number of right hon. and hon. Members about the spread of democracy through appointed boards in the Province.
I should like to outline some of the considerable progress that we have made in recent months and years towards the better government of Northern Ireland by a thorough-going and deep-seated review of the conduct of the government of the Province under direct rule. First, we recently amalgamated the Department of Finance and the Department of the Civil Service to form a new Department, to be called—unimaginatively perhaps, but accurately—the Department of Finance and Personnel. That new Department is beginning to function extremely well.
Secondly, less than a week ago, under an order passed in the House, there was the merger of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Manpower Services to form the Department of Economic Development, which we hope will come into full effect in the autumn of this year. Both developments are part of our attempt to rationalise and streamline the Northern Ireland Departments. There are now six.
Northern Ireland Office Ministers spend a good deal of time out and about in Northern Ireland. We devote particular attention to representations from hon. Members as well as to those from local councillors and particular interest groups. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), who travels ceaselessly to help to further the welfare and commerce of the Province from his constituency, the House, Northern Ireland and all points of the compass. Equally, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), ceaselessly travels the Province talking to councillors.
I hope that in those ways the Government are demonstrating their continued devotion to the better government of Northern Ireland while direct rule continues, although it is the Government's view that direct rule is an imperfect instrument and that it should be brought to end as quickly as possible. That view is, I believe, shared by all political parties in the Province—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

Public Bodies (Female Appointments)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Miss Joan Lestor: When the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 were passed there was hope among many women and the men who supported the legislation that we would gradually see the end of inequality in opportunities and the representation of women in various ways.
The Government have a direct responsibility for appointments to public bodies. After a great deal of research into the appointments of women on public bodies, I decided to seek this Adjournment debate to put the facts before the House. For many years Governments have not measured up to the spirit in the country and the ideas behind the two Acts that, wherever possible, women should be given equality with men.
Secretaries of State could make a significant contribution to redress the imbalance. Ministries and the Government generally can make about 14,000 appointments to public bodies, but since 1977 the change has been minimal. Only 23 per cent. of current appointments are held by women. That is only a 4 per cent. increase since 1977. Only 18 per cent. of the names on the list of public appointments units are women's.
A recent survey by the Equal Opportunities Commission of 874 public bodies found that 304 had no women members and 159 had only one woman serving on each. From answers to parliamentary questions that I have put down it appears that in 1981 the Department of Industry appointed 89 men and only one woman. The Department of Education and Science, in which a large number of women are employed, appointed 46 men and four women. The Department of Transport appointed 83 men and four women. The Department of Energy appointed 78 men and two women. The Department of the Environment appointed 148 men and 27 women. The Welsh Office appointed 107 men and 16 women. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a little coy about providing the information. The Department of Employment appointed 350 men and 66 women. I have not been able to get figures from the Scottish Office. The Department of Trade appointed 306 men and 152 women, so it is doing very well, as is the Home Office, which appointed 364 men and 153 women.
Some of those figures are deplorable. The Department of Energy, I understand, has appointed no women to its nationalised energy boards. The Department of the Environment has appointed no women to the Housing Corporation or to the national park committees and other bodies.
To be fair, some ministries are at least concerned about the need to appoint more women. The Department of Employment has said that women should play a much greater part in public work, and the Welsh Office has made similar statements. Unfortunately, those are not matched by any particular action.
One of the difficulties—the Minister will probably refer to it—is in attracting women to come forward, but the present system and the way it is geared is not making it easy for women. It is particularly geared to a male life style. Meetings of boards are often in the evenings, which precludes many women with children, particularly

working women, from attending. Women serving on public bodies cannot claim child minding fees as a justifiable expense. I have always thought that that was wrong in the House of Commons. It makes life very difficult for women who might want to serve on public bodies.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, appointments can come from a variety of sources, which need not be disclosed, such as personal contact and recommendations. That may preclude women, who are not generally part of what is often known as the "old boy network". Some of us would like to see an "old girl network", so that women might be given greater opportunities.
Only a limited number of appointments come from the public appointments list—perhaps 18 or 20 per cent. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the number of women on the list. Unless the current secrecy about the list is lifted, its effectiveness, or lack of it, will not be ascertained. I believe that it is impossible to ask parliamentary questions about the list and its working.
The criteria of appointment are not made known. The Department of Energy says that
appointments are to be made from people with experience in industry, finance and administration".
Because women do not have that experience on any large scale, such criteria effectively exclude them. However, one could argue that many women who run a home are running a company single-handed; they are likely to be managing director, accountant and production director rolled into one.
The Department of Industry says that
there are far too few women with relevant experience at senior level".
But if we continue to apply that standard to the appointment of women to public bodies, women will go on being excluded for many years. I should have thought that it was reasonable to accept experience at middle and low management levels as equally valid. Why should "relevant experience" be the sole preserve of those who are at the top and who, generally speaking, because of the way in which our society has worked in the past, tend to be men?
The Department of Employment is concerned with the question of merit alone, and because women are so massively under-represented, it may be that it is a very limited use of the word "merit", but that seems to be the criterion applied. In other words, it does not take into account the contribution of many women—the consumer and lay view, which may bring a new and different experience to the work of public bodies.
The Department of Transport, which appointed one woman last year, is a particularly good example, given that the great majority of those who rely on public transport, particularly during the day, are women. They could make a contribution to a public body of this nature from quite a different point of view.
It would be useful, therefore, to have an advisory body which was concerned with the promotion of women in public life, and to advise on the setting of targets by Government Departments. I know that the precedent for this was established by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which said that those appointed to the Scottish children's panel must represent a ratio of men to women which approximates to that in the general population. That is a good guideline. If that were applied to other Ministries, we might begin to make some progress.
An example of where targets could be set is the medical appeals tribunals. Women represent 21·5 per cent. of the membership of the BMA. We could go for the same representation on the medical appeals tribunals. The same could apply to law.
I should like targets to be set and progress monitored, so that where women are obviously under-represented, additional measures to attract women could be considered—for example, in advertising, and in magazines that are more likely to be read by women than men. That would help to overcome the present imbalance, particularly in Ministries. Some Ministries such as the Home Office have a reasonably good record, and others could do well to follow their example. Ministers and Secretaries of State should actively encourage the use of the public appointments list, and ensure that more women are put on that list, and that women are encouraged to come forward.
The criteria for appointments should be published and clarified. That would give the Secretary of State and civil servants an opportunity to reassess what is relevant experience. In many industries, job evaluation schemes are being changed in that respect. That would open the way for a greater understanding by the public of what may be demanded of people going on to public bodies. We know that there is great interchange between one public body and another. The Equal Opportunities Commission spoke of
a stage army of quango members who continue to circulate from one public body to another".
There is an element of truth in that. We want more people generally on public bodies, but particularly women, who have been pretty well excluded. The Government, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, have not measured up to what was expected by the passing of the two Acts that I mentioned.
There has never been a time in the history of this country since the suffragette movement and the gaining of the vote by women, when women have been so active and so concerned with equality and getting themselves accepted as full participants in society at every level. The Government can make a sizeable contribution in ensuring that women are given opportunities in this way, but they have not measured up to the task. I hope that tonight the Minister will take on board what I have said and do his best to ensure that if there is a review of the matter in a year's time, we shall see a marked improvement in women's representation on public bodies.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for bringing to the attention of the House the question of women's appointments to public bodies. I doubt if there are many who need to be reminded of the important role that women can and do already play in many instances in all aspects of public life. It is a subject well worth airing in the House.
In general terms, the responsibility for appointment to public bodies rests with departmental Ministers who seek recommendations from a wide variety of sources—other Ministers and hon. Members, Government Departments, the public appointments unit in the Management and Personnel Office, representative organisations and last, but by no means least, from members of the public. I should like to say more in a few moments about the way

in which this process can be improved with a view to securing greater representation of women on public bodies.
At this stage, I emphasise the importance that the Government and I attach to seeing that the high potential contribution that can be made by women serving in public appointments is not wasted. I am at one with the hon. Lady in saying that there is plainly a degree of wastage of that potential. No one suggests that there should be an exact proportional representation. But the disparities to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention suggest that there is a wastage of potential. It follows that we must always go for merit and not simply look to the sex. We must look to the quality of the individual. That must greatly depend upon qualifications and experience.
The hon. Lady drew attention to the figures produced by Government Departments and published by the Equal Opportunities Commission. These figures indicate that while there have been some increases over the past five years in the number of women appointed to public bodies, they are still under—represented in some areas of public life. She has quoted figures, some of which may, at first sight, suggest that women have been overlooked in the appointments procedure. I do not believe that to have been the case.
There must inevitably be public bodies whose membership has to be drawn from candidates with special knowledge or qualifications. In some cases, women will be favoured as a result. But in many more, it will be men who are appointed on the basis of their particular qualifications and experience. Until we achieve full equality of opportunity for men and women in all spheres of activity, that state of affairs is bound to continue I take the point made by the hon. Lady that it is no good saying "You have not got the experience" if one does not give to people the opportunity to acquire the experience in the first place.
But the picture of public appointments in the EOC's annual report is by no means one of failure on the part of this Government to appoint more women. It is heartening to be able to record that since this Government took office, the proportion of women appointed to public bodies has increased. Women now comprise 23 per cent. of all appointees. It was 17·6 per cent. in 1977, 19·5 per cent. in 1978 and 22 per cent. in 1979. I accept that the increase has been a gradual one, and that there is no cause for complacency in the figures, but it is a trend in the right direction. I am pleased that my Department, as the hon. Lady has fairly acknowledged, heads what might be termed a league table of Government Departments with women occupying 30 per cent. of the appointments to those bodies for which my right hon. Friend has responsibility.
The Government are firmly committed to a policy of equal opportunities for women, and are fully aware of the need to increase the numbers of women appointed. But that, in turn, demands an increase, in terms of quantity and quality, in the number of women willing to come forward to participate in public life. The public appointments unit, which has the responsibility, when asked, for suggesting to Ministers candidates for public appointments, is anxious to know of suitable women. To date, women represent about 16 per cent. of the total number of people on the unit's register of those regarded as suitable for public


work. That is encouraging, given the small number of women who, through their work and other interests, enter the areas from which candidates are likely to be chosen.
The unit is certainly taking positive steps to improve the position. Since July last year, when an article in The Guardian specifically asked women to come forward, more than 100 women have expressed interest. During the past two years the unit has been actively encouraging representative organisations to recommend women. Some 13 women's organisations have been approached, resulting in 39 recommendations, while a further 135 women have come forward as a result of recommendations from organisations with both male and female membership.
Getting on to the central list, or any list from which candidates are selected is, of course, only the first step. The second step is to be selected from that list to be recommended to Ministers. I assure the hon. Lady that no opportunity of putting forward qualified women is knowingly missed.
Although there are many women who have shown an interest in public appointments and have not so far been asked to serve on a public body, to improve on the 16 per cent. already quoted, the public appointments unit would be glad to hear of other suitable women whose names might be added, to give Ministers a wider selection of names to choose from when they are considering making appointments.
The hon. Lady referred to secrecy about the relevant criteria. I am not aware of any. In case there is doubt about what constitutes suitability, the sort of people who might be expected to be appointed are those who have a general ability to analyse problems, to assess evidence impartially and to contribute effectively to group discussion, with a reasonably wide range of interests and experience, including some experience of committee work at a fairly high level, and an ability to apply the knowledge and experience that they have gained in one area to another specific area or to general problems.
The public appointments unit would be glad to hear from anyone, female or male, who feels that he or someone he knows meets those general requirements. I can assure the hon. Lady that my colleagues and I will

continue to take account of the need for public bodies to represent fully and with equality, if that is possible, all sections of the community.
It is sometimes suggested that we should ensure that every public body has at least one woman appointed to it. It is our impression that women and women's organisations would not thank any Minister for appointing "the statutory woman". I know that the hon. Lady did not suggest that. I rather imagine that we have moved beyond that concept. As to the possible suggestion that we should consider increasing the number of women on public bodies by issuing an edict that a percentage of the membership of every board, committee or commission or whatever to which Ministers make appointments should be female, I believe that that would be regarded as an insult to the women of this country who believe that they have a good claim on their own merits. In any event, quotas could themselves be unacceptably discriminatory if any attempt deliberately to achieve or maintain a given balance led to a refusal to appoint an individual because of his or her sex. The possibility of adopting targets for such appointments raises rather different considerations. It creates the danger that, should strenuous efforts be made to meet specific targets, the standard of quality may be sacrificed in favour of quantity and that, in the long term, would not be helpful to the women's cause.
I have spoken about some of the problems that we face in identifying suitable women to serve on public bodies and of the measures that we are taking to invite women to come forward. I cannot pretend that dramatic improvements will be achieved overnight or indeed in the next year. As part of our policy of promoting equal opportunities for women, we shall do what we can to improve upon the present position and to ensure that women are given every opportunity to take their place as members, and chairmen, of public bodies.
I say that not simply out of a sense of fairness and what is fitting towards women but out of a sense that the public interest requires the potential that women have to serve the nation in these important positions and which at present, not to a precisely measurable extent but to some significant extent, is being wasted. It is in the interests of the country as well as of women as a sex that that wastage should be remedied.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Two o' clock.